Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Indian Health Service
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Internal Revenue Service
Public Debt Bureau
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.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Interim rule and request for comments.
We are amending the Oriental fruit fly regulations by quarantining a portion of Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, CA, and restricting the interstate movement of regulated articles from that area. This action is necessary on an emergency basis to prevent the spread of the Oriental fruit fly into noninfested areas of the United States.
This interim rule was effective January 13, 2004. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 22, 2004.
You may submit comments by postal mail/commercial delivery or by e-mail. If you use postal mail/commercial delivery, please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to: Docket No. 02-096-2, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 02-096-2. If you use e-mail, address your comment to
You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
APHIS documents published in the
Mr. Stephen A. Knight, Senior Staff Officer, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-8247.
The Oriental fruit fly,
The Oriental fruit fly regulations, contained in 7 CFR 301.93 through 301.93-10 (referred to below as the regulations), were established to prevent the spread of the Oriental fruit fly into noninfested areas of the United States.
Section 301.93-3(a) provides that the Administrator will list as a quarantined area each State, or each portion of a State, in which the Oriental fruit fly has been found by an inspector, in which the Administrator has reason to believe that the Oriental fruit fly is present, or that the Administrator considers necessary to regulate because of its proximity to the Oriental fruit fly or its inseparability for quarantine purposes from localities in which the Oriental fruit fly has been found. The regulations impose restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles from the quarantined areas. Quarantined areas are listed in § 301.93-3(c).
Less than an entire State will be designated as a quarantined area only if the Administrator determines that: (1) The State has adopted and is enforcing restrictions on the interstate movement of the regulated articles that are substantially the same as those imposed on the interstate movement of regulated articles and (2) the designation of less than the entire State as a quarantined area will prevent the interstate spread of the Oriental fruit fly.
Recent trapping surveys by inspectors of California State and county agencies and by inspectors of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service reveal that a portion of Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, CA, is infested with the Oriental fruit fly.
State agencies in California have begun an intensive Oriental fruit fly eradication program in the quarantined area in Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. Also, California has taken action to restrict the intrastate movement of regulated articles from the quarantined area.
Accordingly, to prevent the spread of the Oriental fruit fly to noninfested areas of the United States, we are amending the regulations in § 301.93-3 by designating a portion of Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, CA, as a quarantined area for the Oriental fruit fly. The quarantined area is described in the rule portion of this document.
In an interim rule effective on October 2, 2002, and published in the
This rulemaking is necessary on an emergency basis to prevent the Oriental fruit fly from spreading to noninfested
We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.
This rule amends the Oriental fruit fly regulations by adding a portion of Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, CA, to the list of quarantined areas. The regulations restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from a quarantined area.
County records indicate there are approximately 29 acres of fruits and vegetables, 6 farmers markets, 1 food bank, 2 fruit haulers, 15 growers, 83 markets and produce vendors, 4 packers, 60 nurseries, and 26 swap meets within the quarantined area that may be affected by this rule.
We expect that any small entities located within the quarantined area that sell regulated articles do so primarily for local intrastate, not interstate, movement, so the effect, if any, of this rule on those entities appears to be minimal. The effect on any small entities that may move regulated articles interstate will be minimized by the availability of various treatments that, in most cases, will allow these small entities to move regulated articles interstate with very little additional cost.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
An environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact have been prepared for this interim rule. The site-specific environmental assessment provides a basis for the conclusion that the implementation of integrated pest management to eradicate the Oriental fruit fly will not have a significant impact on human health and the natural environment. Based on the finding of no significant impact, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared.
The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact were prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are available for public inspection in our reading room (information on the location and hours of the reading room is provided under the heading
This interim rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Section 301.75-15 also issued under Sec. 204, Title II, Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-293; sections 301.75-15 and 301.75-16 also issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Pub. L. 106-224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note).
(c) The areas described below are designated as quarantined areas:
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes, that requires replacement of the wire assembly connectors of the bag rack lighting with new, moisture-resistant connectors and reidentification of the bag racks. This action is necessary to prevent arcing of the wire assembly connectors of the overhead storage bin, and service module and bin extension assemblies, and consequent smoke/fire in the cabin. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective February 24, 2004.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 24, 2004.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Brett Portwood, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5350; fax (562) 627-5210.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.
Two commenters request that the applicability of the proposed AD be revised to exclude airplanes with certain manufacturer's fuselage numbers (MSN) that have been modified from a passenger-to-freighter configuration. One commenter notes that the proposed AD affects both Model MD-11 (passenger) and -11F (freighter) airplanes, as listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-33A064, dated March 6, 2002. The commenters also note that the effectivity listing of the referenced service bulletin includes manufacturer's fuselage numbers (MFN) 530, 537, 540, 547, 550, 554, and 574. The commenters state that, at the time the service bulletin was written, these MFNs were passenger airplanes; however, Boeing has since converted these MFNs to freighters. The commenters conclude that these MFNs no longer have approved configurations that include the components affected by the proposed AD.
We agree. We have revised the applicability to exclude airplanes that have been converted from a passenger-to-freighter configuration, on which passenger configuration equipment has been removed per Boeing-approved drawings after March 6, 2002 (the issue date of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-33A064).
After careful review of the available data, including the comment noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
There are approximately 111 Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 26 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.
For Group 1 airplanes identified in the referenced service bulletin, it will take approximately 11 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost between $1,140 and $1,406 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,855 and $2,121 per airplane.
For Group 2 airplanes identified in the referenced service bulletin, it will take approximately 13 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost between $1,140 and $1,406 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,985, and $2,251 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. The manufacturer may cover the cost of replacement parts associated with this AD, subject to warranty conditions. Manufacturer warranty remedies may also be available for labor costs associated with this AD.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
To prevent arcing of the wire assembly connectors of the overhead storage bin, and service module and bin extension assemblies, and consequent smoke/fire in the cabin, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the wire assembly connectors of the bag rack lighting with new, moisture-resistant connectors and reidentify the bag racks, per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-33A064, dated March 6, 2002.
(b) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
(c) The replacement shall be done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-33A064, dated March 6, 2002. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). Copies may be inspected 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; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(d) This amendment becomes effective on February 24, 2004.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes, that requires revising the vent fan wiring in the right forward cabin drop ceiling, right mid cabin drop ceiling, and right forward cargo compartment, as applicable. This action is necessary to prevent fire and/or smoke in the right forward cabin drop ceiling, right mid cabin drop ceiling, or right forward cargo compartment. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective February 24, 2004.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 24, 2004.
The service information referenced in this AD 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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Brett Portwood, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5350; fax (562) 627-5210.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.
The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
There are approximately 195 Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. We estimate that 67 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately between $14 and $113 per airplane (depending on
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Manufacturer warranty remedies may be available for labor costs associated with this AD. Manufacturer warranty remedies may also be available for labor costs associated with this AD. As a result, the costs attributable to the AD may be less than stated above.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
To prevent fire and/or smoke in the right forward cabin drop ceiling, right mid cabin drop ceiling, or right forward cargo compartment, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the vent fan wiring in the right forward cabin drop ceiling, right mid cabin drop ceiling, and right forward cargo compartment, as applicable, per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-24A196, Revision 01, dated November 20, 2002.
(b) Revisions of the vent fan wiring accomplished before the effective date of this AD per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-24A196, dated December 17, 2001, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.
(c) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) for this AD.
(d) Unless otherwise specified by this AD, the actions shall be done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-24A196, Revision 01, dated November 20, 2002. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). Copies may be inspected 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; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on February 24, 2004.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes, that requires an initial general visual inspection of the power feeder cables of the integrated drive generator (IDG) and the fuel feed lines of engine pylons No. 1 and No. 3 on the wings for proper clearance and damage; corrective actions if necessary; and repetitive general visual inspections and a terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This action is necessary to prevent potential chafing of the power feeder cables of the IDG in engine pylons No. 1 and No. 3 on the wings, and consequent arcing on the fuel lines in the engine pylons and possible fuel fire. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective February 24, 2004.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 24, 2004.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
Brett Portwood, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (562) 627-5350; fax (562) 627-5210.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comment received.
One commenter requests that actions accomplished before the effective date of the AD, per Revision 01 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-54A011, dated August 22, 2001, be considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD. The commenter also asks whether, when an AD mandates a service bulletin that contains the statement “No more work is necessary on airplanes changed as shown in Revision 01 of the service bulletin,” it can assume that the AD allows actions to be accomplished per the earlier revision of the service bulletin.
The FAA partially agrees. We agree that actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD per Revision 01 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-54A011, dated August 22, 2001, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD. Because paragraph (e) of this AD already provides this option, no change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.
We do not agree that an operator may assume that the AD allows actions to be accomplished per an earlier revision of the service bulletin when the service bulletin includes the statement that “No more work is necessary on airplanes changed as shown in Revision * * * of the service bulletin.” The AD must specifically address whether or not a previous version of a service bulletin will satisfy the intent of the AD. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.
For clarification, the FAA has revised the definition of a “general visual inspection” in this final rule.
We have also revised the citation for Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-54A011, dated August 22, 2001, to correctly cite the issue date of that service bulletin.
After careful review of the available data, including the comment noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. However, for clarity and consistency in this final rule, we have retained the language of the NPRM regarding that material.
We have reviewed the figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $60 per work hour to $65 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate.
There are approximately 195 Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 74 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $4,810, or $65 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
It will take approximately 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish the terminating action, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $91 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this terminating action is estimated to be $25,974, or $351 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Manufacturer warranty remedies may be available for labor costs associated with this proposed AD. As a result, the costs attributable to the proposed AD may be less than stated above.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
To prevent potential chafing of the power feeder cables of the integrated drive generator (IDG) in engine pylons No. 1 and No. 3 on the wings, and consequent arcing on the fuel lines in the engine pylons and possible fuel fire, accomplish the following:
Boeing has issued Information Notice MD11-54A011 R02 IN 02, dated July 11, 2002. The information notice informs operators of a typographical error for the string tie part number (P/N) specified in the Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-54A011, Revision 02. The service bulletin specifies string tie P/N 190L0F21G/A; the correct P/N is 109 LOF 21G/A.
(a) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection of the power feeder cables of the IDG and the fuel feed lines of engine pylons No. 1 and No. 3 on the wings for proper clearance and damage, per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-54A011, Revision 02, dated May 31, 2002.
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.”
(b) If proper clearance exists and no damage is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD, do the action(s) specified in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this AD, as applicable, per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-54A011, Revision 02, dated May 31, 2002.
(1) For Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes identified in the service bulletin: Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD every 6 months until the modification required by paragraph (b)(2) or (b)(3) of this AD, as applicable, has been done.
(2) For Group 1 airplanes identified in the service bulletin: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, install the brackets to support the IDG harness, and install new clamps on the power feeder cables of the IDG of the No. 1 and No. 3 pylons.
(3) For Group 2 airplanes identified in the service bulletin: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the existing fairlead with a new clamp, and install new tape.
(c) If improper clearance exists and no damage is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD, do the action(s) specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, as applicable, per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-54A011, Revision 02, dated May 31, 2002.
(1) For Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes identified in the service bulletin: Before further flight, reposition cables, and repeat the inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD every 6 months until the modification required by paragraph (c)(2) or (c)(3) of this AD, as applicable, has been done.
(2) For Group 1 airplanes identified in the service bulletin: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, install the brackets to support the IDG harness, and install new clamps on the power feeder cables of the IDG of engine pylons No. 1 and No. 3.
(3) For Group 2 airplanes identified in the service bulletin: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the existing fairlead with a new clamp, and install new tape.
(d) If improper clearance exists and any damage is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD, do the action(s) specified in paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3) of this AD, as applicable, per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-54A011, Revision 02, dated May 31, 2002.
(1) For Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes identified in the service bulletin: Before further flight, reposition cables; repair damage or replace damaged cables or fuel feed lines with new or serviceable cables or fuel feed lines; and repeat the inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD every 6 months until the modification required by paragraph (d)(2) or (d)(3) of this AD, as applicable, has been done.
(2) For Group 1 airplanes identified in the service bulletin: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, install the brackets to support the IDG harness, and install new clamps on the power feeder cables of the IDG of engine pylons No. 1 and No. 3.
(3) For Group 2 airplanes identified in the service bulletin: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the existing fairlead with a new clamp, and install new tape.
(e) Accomplishment of the actions specified in this AD before the effective date of this AD per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-54A011, Revision 01, dated August 22, 2001, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD.
(f) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
(g) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, the actions shall be done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-54A011, Revision 02, dated May 31, 2002. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). Copies may be inspected 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 90712; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(h) This amendment becomes effective on February 24, 2004.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes, that requires revising the wire connection stackups for the terminal strip of the generator feeder tail compartment of the auxiliary power unit (APU), and removing a nameplate, as applicable. For certain airplanes, this AD also requires replacing the terminal strips and revising the terminal hardware stackup for the feeder of the center cargo loading system. This action is necessary to prevent arcing damage to the terminal strips and damage to the adjacent structure, which could result in smoke and/or fire in the center and/or aft cargo compartments. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective February 24, 2004.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 24, 2004.
The service information referenced in this AD 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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Brett Portwood, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (562) 627-5350; fax (562) 627-5210.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.
The FAA has revised the spelling of a word from “namplate” to “nameplate” in this AD.
The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the change described previously. The FAA has determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of this AD.
There are approximately 154 Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. We estimate that 67 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately between 1 and 2 work hours per airplane (depending on the airplane configuration) to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $102 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to between $11,189 and $15,544, or between $167 and $232 per airplane (depending on the airplane configuration).
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. However, for affected airplanes within the period under the warranty agreement, we have been advised that the manufacturer has committed previously to its customers that it will bear the cost of replacement parts. We also have been advised that manufacturer warranty remedies are available for labor costs associated with accomplishing the actions required by this AD. Therefore, the future economic cost impact of this AD may be less than the cost impact figure indicated above.
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 adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
To prevent arcing damage to the terminal strips and damage to the adjacent structure, which could result in smoke and/or fire in the center and/or aft cargo compartments, accomplish the following:
(a) For Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes listed in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD11-24A173, Revision 02, dated May 2, 2002: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD per the service bulletin. Although the service bulletin references a reporting requirement in paragraph 4, “Appendix,” such reporting is not required by this AD.
(1) Revise the wire connection stackups for the terminal strip of the generator feeder tail compartment of the auxiliary power unit (APU), and remove the nameplate, as applicable.
(2) Do a general visual inspection to detect arcing damage of the surrounding structure, adjacent system components, and electrical cables in the center cargo and aft cargo compartments.
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) For Group 2 airplanes listed in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD11-24A173, Revision 02, dated May 2, 2002: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this AD per the service bulletin. Although the service bulletin references a reporting requirement in paragraph 4, “Appendix,” such reporting is not required by this AD.
(1) Replace the terminal strips and revise the terminal hardware stackup for the feeder of the center cargo loading system, and remove the nameplate, as applicable.
(2) Do a general visual inspection to detect arcing damage of the surrounding structure, adjacent system components, and electrical cables in the center cargo and aft cargo compartments.
(c) If any damage is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD, before further flight, repair damage or replace the damaged part with a new part, per McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD11-24A173, Revision 02, dated May 2, 2002. If the type of structural material that has been damaged is not covered in the structural repair manual, repair per a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Although the service bulletin references a reporting requirement in paragraph 4, “Appendix,” such reporting is not required by this AD.
(d) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
(e) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, the actions shall be done in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD11-24A173, Revision 02, dated May 2, 2002. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). Copies may be inspected 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; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(f) This amendment becomes effective on February 24, 2004.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-22B series, RB211-524B, -524C2, -524D4, -524G2, -524G3, and -524H series, and RB211-535C and -535E series turbofan engines with high pressure compressor (HPC) stage 3 disc assemblies, part numbers (P/Ns) LK46210, LK58278, LK67634, LK76036, UL11706, UL15358, UL22577, UL22578, and UL24738 installed. This AD allows disc assemblies not modified by a certain RR service bulletin to reach their full life only after the disc assemblies are modified with anti-corrosion protection. This AD results from the manufacturer's reassessment of the corrosion risk on HPC stage 3 disc assemblies that have not yet been modified with sufficient application of anti-corrosion protection. We are issuing this AD to prevent corrosion-induced uncontained disc failure, resulting in damage to the airplane.
This AD becomes effective February 24, 2004.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 24, 2004.
You can get the service information identified in this AD from Rolls-Royce plc, PO Box 31, Derby, England, DE248BJ; telephone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-245-418.
You may examine the AD docket, by appointment, at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. You may examine the service information, at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine And Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park; Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone (781) 238-7178; fax (781) 238-7199.
The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR Part 39 with a proposed airworthiness directive (AD). The proposed AD applies to RR RB211-22B series, RB211-524B, -524C2, -524D4, -524G2, -524G3, and -524H series, and RB211-535C and -535E series turbofan engines with HPC stage 3 disc assemblies, P/Ns LK46210, LK58278, LK67634, LK76036, UL11706, UL15358, UL22577, UL22578, and UL24738 installed. We published the proposed AD in the
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.
Three commenters request that the FAA include a reference to RR Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. RB.211-72-9661, since the AD action is based on compliance with the procedures in this service bulletin.
We agree that the AD action is based on performing the procedures in (MSB) No. RB.211-72-9661, however, we included all pertinent compliance requirements in the AD and chose to not incorporate by reference that MSB. However, because that MSB is the basis for the AD action, we have added a reference to it in the Related Information paragraph.
One commenter requests that the AD be changed to have the same compliance dates as Service Bulletin (SB) No. RB.211-72-9434, Revision 4, dated January 12, 2002. The commenter points out that the SB compliance time for discs in service more than 12 years is from the date of introduction of the original SB. The commenter also points out that the compliance time is based on the date of the SB revision date of January 4, 2002, and would, therefore, require rework to be completed before January 4, 2007.
We partially agree. While the commenter is correct regarding the compliance date differences between the AD and the SB, the intent of the SB is met because the AD is consistent with the SB by mandating rework before exceeding the upper cyclic limit of the discs. Further, we agree that removal of discs in service more than 12 years from the date of the SB revision date, would require the AD to reference 1990 instead of 1992. Therefore, we have changed this date in the AD accordingly.
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
On July 10, 2002, the FAA published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's AD system. That regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. The material previously was included in each individual AD. Since the material is included in 14 CFR part 39, we will not include it in future AD actions.
There are about 2,000 RR RB211-22B series, RB211-524B, -524C2, -524D4, -524G2, -524G3, and -524H series, and RB211-535C and -535E series turbofan engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. We estimate that 1,000 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this AD. We also estimate that it would take about 31 work hours per engine to perform the actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $38,000 per engine. Based on these figures, the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators is estimated to be $40,015,000.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective February 24, 2004.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-22B series, RB211-524B, -524C2, -524D4, -524G2, -524G3, and -524H series, and RB211-535C and—535E series turbofan engines with high pressure compressor (HPC) stage 3 disc assemblies, part numbers (P/Ns) LK46210, LK58278, LK67634, LK76036, UL11706, UL15358, UL22577, UL22578, and UL24738 installed. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 747, Boeing 757, Boeing 767, Lockheed L-1011, and Tupolev Tu204 series airplanes.
(d) This AD results from the manufacturer's reassessment of the corrosion risk on HPC stage 3 disc assemblies that have not yet been modified with sufficient application of anti-corrosion protection. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent corrosion-induced uncontained disc failure, resulting in damage to the airplane.
(e) Compliance with this AD is required as indicated, unless already done.
(f) Remove from service affected HPC stage 3 disc assemblies identified in the following Table 1, using one of the following criteria:
(1) For discs that entered into service before 1990, remove disc and rework as specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, within five years from the effective date of this AD, but not to exceed the upper cyclic limit of Table 1 of this AD before rework. Discs reworked may not exceed the manufacturer's published cyclic limit in the time limits section of the manual.
(2) For discs that entered into service in 1990 or later, remove disc within the cyclic life rework bands in Table 1 of this AD, or within 17 years after the date of the disc assembly entering into service, whichever is sooner, but not to exceed the upper cyclic limit of Table 1 of this AD before rework. Discs reworked may not exceed the manufacturer's published cyclic limit in the time limits section of the manual.
(3) For disc assemblies that when new, were modified with an application of anti-corrosion protection and re-marked to P/N LK76036 (not previously machined) as specified by Part 1 of the original issue of RR service bulletin (SB) No. RB.211-72-5420, dated April 20, 1979, remove RB211-22B disc assemblies before accumulating 10,000 cycles-in-service (CIS), and remove RB211-524 disc assemblies before accumulating 9,000 CIS.
(4) If the disc assembly date of entry into service cannot be determined, the date of disc manufacture may be obtained from RR and used instead.
(g) Rework HPC stage 3 disc assemblies that were removed in paragraph (f) of this AD as follows:
(1) For disc assemblies that when new, were modified with an application of anti-corrosion protection and re-marked to P/N LK76036 (not previously machined) as specified by Part 1 of the original issue of RR SB RB.211-72-5420, dated April 20, 1979, rework disc assemblies and re-mark to either LK76034 or LK78814 using paragraph 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of RR SB No. RB.211-72-5420, Revision 4, dated February 29, 1980. This rework constitutes terminating action to the removal requirements in paragraph (f) of this AD.
(2) For all other disc assemblies, rework using Paragraph 3B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of RR SB No. RB.211-72-9434, Revision 4, dated January 12, 2000. This rework constitutes terminating action to the removal requirements in paragraph (f) of this AD.
If rework is done on disc assemblies that are removed before the disc assembly reaches the lower life of the cyclic life rework band in Table 1 of this AD, artificial aging of the disc to the lower life of the rework band, at time of rework, is required.
(h) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(i) You must use Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-5420, Revision 4, dated February 29, 1980, and Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-9434, Revision 4, dated January 12, 2000, to perform the rework required by this AD. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these service bulletins in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You can get copies from Rolls-Royce plc, PO Box 31, Derby, England, DE248BJ; telephone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-245-418. You can review copies at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(j) Civil Aviation Authority airworthiness directive 004-01-94, dated January 4, 2002, and RR Mandatory Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-9661, Revision 3, dated December 20, 1999, pertain to the subject of this AD.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Final rule; approval of amendment.
We are approving a proposed amendment to the North Dakota regulatory program (the “North Dakota program”) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). North Dakota proposed revisions to rules that would allow the State to accept letters of credit as the monetary pledge for collateral bonds, would allow phased bonding over a bond area, would clarify provisions on blasting records kept by mining companies, and would standardize terminology in revegetation success standards for bond release. North Dakota intends to revise its program to provide additional safeguards, clarify ambiguities, and improve operational efficiency.
January 20, 2004.
Guy Padgett, Telephone: 307/261-6550, 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 this Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.”
By letter dated April 23, 2003, North Dakota sent us an amendment to its program (Amendment number XXXIV, Administrative Record No. ND-II-01) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the July 7, 2003,
The public comment period ended on August 6, 2003. We received comments from one Federal agency, one university and one State society. No one requested a public meeting or hearing, therefore we did not conduct one.
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.
North Dakota proposed minor wording changes to the following previously-approved rules.
Because the above changes are both minor, we find that they will not make North Dakota's rules less effective than the corresponding Federal regulations.
North Dakota proposed revisions to the following rules containing language that is the same as or similar to the corresponding sections of the Federal regulations.
Because these proposed rules contain language that is the same as or similar to the corresponding Federal regulations, we find that they are no less effective than the corresponding Federal regulations.
We asked for public comments on the amendment (Administrative Record No. ND-II-03), and one university replied. Duane Hauck, Assistant Director of Agriculture and Natural Resources, wrote in his May 20, 2003, letter, that “The NDSU Extension Service has no additional comments”' (Administrative Record No. ND-II-05)
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we requested comments on the amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the North Dakota program (Administrative Record No. ND-II-03).
Ray McKinney of the Mine Safety and Health Administration replied on June 9, 2003, that “none of the changes have a direct impact upon employee or public health or safety and, consequently, MSHA has no comments or recommendations concerning the changes.” (Administrative Record No. ND-II-06).
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM requested comments on the amendment from EPA (Administrative Record No. ND-II-03). EPA did not respond to our request.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from the
We approve the rules as proposed by North Dakota with the provision that they be fully promulgated in identical form to the rules submitted to and reviewed by OSM and the public. We approve: (1) NDAC 69-05.2-01-02.13, Definition of Collateral Bond; (2) NDAC 69-05.2-12-01.11, Performance Bond—General Requirements; (3) NDAC 69-05.2-12-04.2, Performance Bond—Collateral Bond; (4) NDAC 69-05.2-17-07, Performance standards—Use of Explosives—Records of Blasting Operations; and (5) NDAC 69-05.2-22-07, Performance standards—Revegetation—Standards for success.
To implement the decision to approve the rules, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 934, which codify decisions concerning the North Dakota 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 demonstrates 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 (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review).
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 Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. The rule does not involve or affect Indian Tribes in any way.
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
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing permanent safety and security zones in portions of the waters around La Guardia and John F. Kennedy airports in Queens, NY, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) ammunition depot on Rodman Neck in Eastchester Bay, the Port Newark and Port Elizabeth, NJ, commercial shipping facilities in Newark Bay, and between the Global Marine and Military Ocean Terminals in Upper New York Bay. This action is necessary to safeguard critical port infrastructure and coastal facilities from sabotage, subversive acts, or other threats. The zones prohibit entry into or movement within these areas without authorization from the Captain of the Port New York.
This rule is effective January 20, 2004.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket (CGD01-03-036) and are available for inspection or copying at room 203, Coast Guard Activities New York, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Lieutenant Commander W. Morton, Waterways Oversight Branch, Coast Guard Activities New York at (718) 354-4191.
On February 19, 2003, we published a temporary final rule; request for comments (TFR) entitled “Safety and Security Zones; New York Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone” in the
On August 7, 2003, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Safety and Security Zones; New York Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone” in the
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Additionally, the Maritime Administration recently issued MARAD Advisory 03-06 (221500ZDEC 03) informing operators of maritime interests of increased threat possibilities to vessels and facilities and a higher risk of terrorist attack to the transportation community in the United States. Further, the heightened security posture of the country and U. S. maritime interests, described below, continues.
For these reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
On September 11, 2001, three commercial aircraft were hijacked and flown into the World Trade Center in New York City, and the Pentagon, inflicting catastrophic human casualties and property damage. National security and intelligence officials warn that future terrorist attacks are likely. The President has continued the national emergencies he declared following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has issued several warnings concerning the potential for additional attacks within the United States. In addition, the ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq have made it prudent for U.S. ports and properties of national significance to be on a higher state of alert because the al Qaeda organization and other similar organizations have declared an ongoing intention to conduct armed attacks on U.S. interests worldwide.
The Captain of the Port New York recently established six new safety and security zones throughout the New York Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone. (68 FR 2890, January 22, 2003). Subsequently, the Captain of the Port determined that additional safety and security zones are urgently required to meet critical maritime domain security needs that were not addressed by the earlier rule.
On February 19, 2003, we published a Temporary final rule; request for comments entitled “Safety and Security Zones; New York Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone” in the
As we proposed in August 2003, the Coast Guard is establishing permanent safety and security zones around La Guardia and John F. Kennedy airports, the New York City Police Department ammunition depot, the Port Newark/Port Elizabeth commercial shipping facilities, and between the Global Marine and Military Ocean Terminals, west of the New Jersey Pierhead Channel.
These safety and security zones are necessary to provide for the safety of the port and to ensure that vessels, facilities, airports, or ammunition depots, are not used as targets of, or platforms for, terrorist attacks. These zones restrict entry into or movement within portions of the New York Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zones.
The Coast Guard received a total of three comments to the notice of proposed rulemaking. What follows is a review of, and the Coast Guard's response to, the issues and questions that were presented by these commenters concerning the proposed regulations.
(1) The Coast Guard received a petition with 75 signatures requesting the waters between the Military Ocean and Global Marine Terminals be authorized for use for recreational boating, crabbing, swimming, fishing, and water skiing as it is asserted to be a quiet anchorage and one of the only areas around Bayonne that can be used by the boaters of Bayonne and Jersey City. The petition suggested the Coast Guard issue identification cards to users after they register with the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has considered these comments.
The water between the Military Ocean and Global Marine Terminals is not an anchorage area. Recreational boaters may still operate in nearby areas of Newark Bay and Upper New York Bay outside of current safety and security zones. The Coast Guard does not have the resources available, and does not deem it practicable, to regularly conduct background checks, issue identification cards, and check recreational boaters for compliance at the waterway entrance to this commercial and Coast Guard facility. Accordingly, no changes have been made to this rule.
(2) One commenter requested that the Coast Guard consider extending the zones to account for navigational piers extending out into the navigable waters and shifting shorelines, to account for security concerns raised by the commenter. The Coast Guard held two meetings with the commenter to discuss the effects and desirability of any further extensions. Based on the information submitted and the meetings held, the Coast Guard has determined that no additional changes are desired from the proposed rule.
(3) One commenter supported the proposed rulemaking but sought clarification of the Coast Guard's procedures for accessing safety and security zones. The Coast Guard described its current procedures and referred the commenter to the Harbor Operations Safety and Navigation Committee's Web site,
No changes have been made to this rulemaking.
This rule establishes the following safety and security zones:
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety and security zone in all waters of Bowery and Flushing Bays within approximately 200 yards of La Guardia Airport. The zone would start at a point onshore in Steinway, Queens (approximate position 40°46′32.1″ N, 073°53′22.4″ W (NAD 1983)), proceeding east/northeast, 200 yards off the shoreline to a point 200 yards off the shoreline and 25 yards southeast of the lighted runway approach extending through Rikers Island Channel, continuing to the northwest, maintaining a distance of 25 yards off the lighted runway approach, to a point 25 yards past the end of the lighted runway approach, to the Rikers Island shoreline in approximate position, 40°47′13.0″ N, 073°53′16.1″ W, thence easterly along the Rikers Island shoreline to approximate position 40°47′12.9″ N, 073°52′17.9″ W, maintaining a distance of 25 yards around the lighted runway approach extending to the east of Rikers Island, to a point 200 yards off the shoreline of La Guardia Field, continuing 200 yards off the shoreline to where it intersects the southern boundary of Flushing Bay Channel, continuing along the southern boundary of Flushing Bay Channel to where it intersects the northern boundary of the western Special Anchorage Area, and continuing along the northern boundary of the Special Anchorage Area to approximate position 40°45′48.4″ N, 073°51′37.0″ W, (NAD 1983) in East Elmhurst, Queens, thence along the shoreline to the point of origin.
Within the boundaries of this zone, the Coast Guard is establishing another safety and security zone in all waters of Bowery and Flushing Bays within approximately 100 yards of La Guardia Airport.
When port security conditions permit, the Captain of the Port will allow vessels to operate within that portion of the 200-yard zone that lies outside of the waters described in the 100-yard zone. Authorization to enter the waters that lie between the outer boundaries of the two zones will be communicated by the Captain of the Port to the public by
The Coast Guard is establishing four safety and security zones in all waters near JFK Airport bound by the following points:
First, all waters of Bergen Basin north of 40°39′26.4″ N.
Second, all waters of Thurston Basin north of 40°38′21.2″ N.
Third, all waters of Jamaica Bay within approximately 200 yards of John F. Kennedy Airport. The zone starts at a point onshore east of Bergen Basin, Queens in approximate position 40°38′49.0″ N, 073°49′09.1″ W, thence 200 yards offshore to approximate position 40°38′42.5″ N, 073°49′13.2″ W, (NAD 1983) proceeding east/southeast, 200 yards off the shoreline to a point 200 yards off the shoreline and 25 yards off the lighted runway approach extending north of East High Meadow, maintaining a distance of 25 yards around the lighted runway approach, to a point 200 yards off the shoreline, continuing 200 yards off the shoreline to Jamaica Bay Grass Hassock Channel LIGHT 23 (LLNR 34485), continuing along the northern boundary of Head of Bay Channel, maintaining a 200 yard boundary to approximate position thence to 40°38′00.8″ N, 073°44′54.9″ W, about 690 yards northeast of Head of Bay Buoy 30 (LLNR 34545) thence to the shoreline at 40°38′05.1″ N, 073°45′00.3″ W, (NAD 1983) thence along the shoreline to the point of origin.
Fourth, within the boundaries of this zone, the Coast Guard is establishing another safety and security zone in all waters of Jamaica Bay within approximately 100 yards of John F. Kennedy Airport.
When port security conditions permit, the Captain of the Port will allow vessels to operate within that portion of the 200-yard zone in Jamaica Bay that lies outside of the waters described in the 100-yard zone. Authorization to enter the waters that lie between the outer boundaries of those two zones will be communicated by the Captain of the Port to the public by marine broadcast, local notice to mariners, or notice posted at
The Coast Guard is establishing two safety and security zones in all waters of Eastchester Bay near the NYPD Ammunition Depot bound by the following points:
First, all waters of Eastchester Bay within approximately 150 yards of Rodman Neck. The zone starts at a point on the western shore of Rodman Neck in approximate position 40°51′30.4″ N, 073°48′14.9″ W, thence 150 yards offshore to 40°51′29.9″ N, 073°48′20.7″ W, (NAD 1983) proceeding around the southern end of Rodman Neck and then north to a point onshore in approximate position 40°51′23.5″ N, 073°47′41.9″ W, (NAD 1983), south of the City Island Bridge, thence southwesterly along the shoreline to the point of origin.
Second, within the boundaries of this zone, the Coast Guard is establishing another safety and security zone in all waters of Eastchester Bay within approximately 100 yards of Rodman Neck.
When port security conditions permit, the Captain of the Port will allow vessels to operate within that portion of the 150-yard zone that lies outside of the waters described in the 100-yard zone. Authorization to enter the waters that lie between the outer boundaries of the two zones will be communicated by the Captain of the Port to the public by marine broadcast, local notice to mariners, or notice posted at
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety and security zone around the Port Newark and Port Elizabeth facilities in Newark Bay. The zone starts at a point onshore at the New Jersey Extension Bridge in approximate position 40°41′49.9″ N, 074°07′32.2″ W, thence to 40°41′46.5″ N, 074°07′20.4″ W, (NAD 1983) at the western edge of Newark Bay North Reach, proceeding along the western edge of Newark Bay Channel south through Newark Bay Channel Buoy 21 (LLNR 37515), Newark Bay Channel Buoy 19A (LLNR 37507), Newark Bay Channel Lighted Buoy 17 (LLNR 37485), Newark Bay Channel Buoy 15A (LLNR 37477), Newark Bay Channel Lighted Buoy 7 (LLNR 37405), thence west to the shoreline in approximate position 40°39′21.5″ N, 074°09′54.3″ W, (NAD 1983) thence northerly along the shoreline to the point of origin.
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety and security zone that includes all waters of Upper New York Bay between the Global Marine and Military Ocean Terminals, west of the New Jersey Pierhead Channel.
The zones described above are necessary to protect the La Guardia and John F. Kennedy airports, NYPD ammunition depot, the Port Newark/Port Elizabeth commercial shipping facilities, the Global Marine Terminal, others in the maritime community, and the surrounding communities from subversive or terrorist attack against the airports, ammunition depot, and commercial shipping facilities that could potentially cause serious negative impact to vessels, the port, commercial ground shipments by vehicle or rail, airline traffic, or the environment and result in numerous casualties. The Captain of the Port does not expect this rule to interfere with the transit of any vessels through the waterways adjacent to each facility. Vessels would still be able to transit around the safety and security zones at all times. Additionally, vessels will not be precluded from mooring at or getting underway from commercial or recreational piers in the vicinity of the zones.
Any violation of any safety or security zone herein is punishable by, among others, civil penalties (not to exceed $27,500 per violation, where each day of a continuing violation is a separate violation), criminal penalties (imprisonment for not more than 10 years and a fine of not more than $100,000), in rem liability against the offending vessel, and license sanctions. This rulemaking is established under the authority contained in 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1225 and 1226.
No person or vessel may enter or remain in a prescribed safety or security zone at any time without the permission of the Captain of the Port, New York. Each person or vessel in a safety or security zone shall obey any direction or order of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port may take possession and control of any vessel in a security zone and/or remove any person, vessel, article or thing from a security zone.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This finding is based on the fact that: The zones were established by a previous Temporary final rule with a 60-day comment period and no comments were received by the Coast Guard; the zones implicate relatively small portions of the waterway; vessels will be able to transit around the safety and security zones at all times; commercial vessels visiting Port Newark/Port Elizabeth and Global Marine Terminal are already subject to control of the Vessel Traffic Service and previously established safety and security zones while recreational and fishing vessels are unlikely to operate within those areas; and the Captain of the Port will relax the enforcement of the 200-yard zones around airport facilities and the 150-yard zone around the NYPD ammunition depot whenever he determines that the security environment existing within the port allows him to do so.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the New York Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zones in which entry will be prohibited by the safety or security zones.
These safety and security zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The zones implicate relatively small portions of the waterway; vessels will be able to transit around the safety and security zones at all times; commercial vessels visiting Port Newark/Port Elizabeth and the Global Marine Terminal are already subject to control of the Vessel Traffic Service and previously established safety and security zones; and the Captain of the Port will relax the enforcement of the 200-yard zones around airport facilities and the 150-yard zone around the NYPD ammunition depot whenever he determines that the security environment existing within the port allows him to do so.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this temporary rule so that we can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Commander W. Morton, Waterways Oversight Branch, Coast Guard Activities New York at (718) 354-4191.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. We invite your comments on how this rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a “tribal implication” under the Order.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant
We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation because it establishes safety and security zones. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46. Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.
(a) * * *
(7)
(ii)
(iii)
(8)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(9)
(ii)
(iii)
(10)
(11)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of South Dakota on June 27, 2002. The June 27, 2002, submittal consists of revisions to the administrative rules of South Dakota. These revisions add a new chapter to regulate fugitive emissions of particulate matter from State facilities and State contractors that conduct a construction activity or continuous operation activity in the Rapid City air quality control zone. The intended effect of this action is to make the revisions to the administrative rules of South Dakota federally enforceable. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
This rule is effective on March 22, 2004, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by February 19, 2004. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Written comments may be submitted by mail to Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado, 80202. Comments may also be submitted electronically, or through hand delivery/courier. Please follow the detailed instructions described in sections (I)(B)(1)(i) through (iii) of the
Laurel Dygowski, EPA, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Mailcode 8P-AR, Denver, Colorado 80202, (303) 312-6144, e-mail
1.
3.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at the EPA Regional Office, as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate rulemaking identification number by including the text “Public comment on proposed rulemaking (SD-001-0016)” in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically to EPA. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the official public regional rulemaking file. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public file and available for public inspection without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the
In 1980, the Rapid City Area Air Quality Board (Air Quality Board) was created to address non-point source air pollution in Rapid City after Rapid City was designated nonattainment by EPA for violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for total suspended particulates (TSP). The Air Quality Board addresses non-industrial sources of fugitive emissions through the Rapid City Municipal Code Chapters 8:34 through 8:44 and Pennington County Ordinance No. 12, including the application of reasonable controls and permit requirements for dust producing activities, such as general construction and road construction.
When EPA changed the TSP standard to the PM10 standard, Rapid City was no longer considered nonattainment for TSP and was designated as unclassifiable for PM10. Subsequent to this, South Dakota determined that under South Dakota law, SDCL 34A-1-36, the Air Quality Board does not have the authority to regulate the State or State contractors since the area is not in violation of the PM10 standard. In addition, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources only addresses point source emissions and fugitive emissions from industrial sources, which means that there are no regulations for controlling fugitive emissions from State agencies and State contractors who conduct a construction activity or continuous operation activity. In addition, State agencies or State contractors who emit fugitive dust have less stringent requirements than contractors conducting non-State business.
To address this, the State of South Dakota developed new State air quality rules for the Rapid City area that establish a State permitting process for State facilities and State contractors that conduct a construction activity or continuous operation activity in the Rapid City air quality control zone. This would address the concern that State
On June 27, 2002, the State of South Dakota submitted a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The June 27, 2002, submittal consists of a revision to the Administrative Rules of South Dakota (ARSD). This revision adds chapter 74:36:18. Chapter 74:36:18, titled Regulations for State Facilities, applies to State contractors and State agencies that conduct a construction activity or continuous operation activity in the Rapid City air quality control zone. The Rapid City air quality control zone is defined as a 10-mile by 14-mile area within the following boundaries: (a) Commencing at the northwest corner of Section 15, Township 2 north, Range 6 east; (b) east to the northeast corner of Section 14, Township 2 north, Range 8 east; (c) south to the southeast corner of Section 35, Township 1 north, Range 8 east; (d) west to the southwest corner of Section 34, Township 1 north, Range 6 east; and (e) north to the point of beginning.
Chapter 74:36:18 was written to closely follow the existing Air Quality Board permitting requirements. Chapter 74:36:18 requires State contractors and State agencies that conduct a construction activity or continuous operation activity in the Rapid City air quality control zone that may cause fugitive emissions of particulate matter (PM) to be released into the ambient air to obtain a permit issued by the State prior to beginning the activity and to apply reasonably available control technology (RACT). RACT must be implemented to prevent fugitive emissions of PM from exceeding the visible emission limit of 20 percent opacity. The opacity limit of 20 percent does not apply if the following three meteorological conditions exist: (a) Five consecutive days of 0.02 inches or less of precipitation each day excluding dry snow; (b) forecasted peak wind gusts greater than 40 miles per hour; and (c) forecasted average hourly wind speed greater than 20 miles per hour.
EPA is taking direct final action approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of South Dakota on June 27, 2002. The June 27, 2002, submittal consists of a revision to the administrative rules of South Dakota. This revision adds a new chapter that regulates fugitive emissions of PM from State facilities and State contractors that conduct a construction activity or continuous operation activity in the Rapid City air quality control zone. The intended effect of this action is to make the revision to the administrative rules of South Dakota federally enforceable.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the “proposed rules” section of today's
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 22, 2004. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(22) On June 27, 2002, the designee of the Governor of South Dakota submitted revisions to the State Implementation Plan. The June 27, 2002 submittal consists of revisions to the Administrative Rules of South Dakota. These revisions add a new chapter 74:36:18, “Regulations for State Facilities in the Rapid City Area”. Chapter 74:36:18 regulates fugitive emissions of particulate matter from state facilities and state contractors that conduct a construction activity or continuous operation activity within the Rapid City air quality control zone.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Chapter 74:36:18 of the Administrative Rules of South Dakota, effective July 1, 2002.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Immediate final rule.
Pennsylvania has applied to EPA for final authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization and is authorizing Pennsylvania's changes through this immediate final action. EPA is publishing this rule to authorize the changes without a prior proposal because we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. Unless we receive written comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the decision to authorize Pennsylvania's changes to its hazardous waste program will take effect. If we receive comments that oppose this action, or portions thereof, we will publish a document in the
This final authorization will become effective on March 22, 2004, unless EPA receives adverse written comments by February 19, 2004. If EPA receives any such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of this immediate final rule in the
Send written comments to Charles Bentley, Mailcode 3WC21, RCRA State Programs Branch, U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone number: (215) 814-3379. Comments may also be submitted electronically to:
Charles Bentley, Mailcode 3WC21, RCRA State Programs Branch, U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Phone number: (215) 814-3379.
States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes to become more stringent or broader in scope, States must change their programs and apply to EPA to authorize the changes. Authorization of changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must revise their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.
EPA concludes that Pennsylvania's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Pennsylvania final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in its application for program revisions,
This decision serves to authorize revisions to Pennsylvania's authorized hazardous waste program. This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Pennsylvania is being authorized by today's action are already effective and are not changed by today's action. Pennsylvania has enforcement responsibilities under its state hazardous waste program for violations of its program, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:
• Perform inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;
• Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits; and
• Take enforcement actions regardless of whether Pennsylvania has taken its own actions.
EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we view this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of today's
If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, or portions thereof, we will withdraw this rule, or portions thereof, by publishing a document in the
If we receive comments that oppose the authorization of a particular change to the State's hazardous waste program, we will withdraw that part of this rule, but the authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose will become effective on the date specified above. The
Initially, Pennsylvania received final authorization to implement its hazardous waste management program effective May 29, 1986 (51 FR 17739). EPA granted authorization for changes to Pennsylvania's regulatory program on May 10, 2000, effective July 10, 2000 (65 FR 29973).
On September 25, 2003, Pennsylvania submitted a program revision application in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21, seeking authorization of provisions of its hazardous waste program corresponding to changes made to the Federal hazardous waste regulations between July 7, 1999, and June 28, 2001. The Commonwealth's provisions for which it is seeking authorization are identical to the corresponding Federal provisions because the Commonwealth has incorporated the Federal provisions by reference. The EPA has reviewed Pennsylvania's application, and now makes an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of adverse written comment, that Pennsylvania's hazardous waste program satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Consequently, EPA intends to grant Pennsylvania final authorization for the program modifications contained in the program revision application.
Pennsylvania's program revision application includes regulatory changes to the Commonwealth's authorized hazardous waste program, including the adoption of the Federal hazardous waste regulations published between July 7, 1999 and June 28, 2001, with certain exceptions noted in this section. Pennsylvania is today seeking authority to administer the Federal requirements that are listed in the following chart. This chart also lists the Commonwealth's analogous provisions that are being recognized as equivalent to the corresponding Federal requirements. The regulatory references are to Title 25, Pennsylvania Code (25 Pa.Code), Chapters 260a through 266a, 266b, 268a, and 270a, effective May 1, 1999. Pennsylvania's authority to incorporate subsequent changes to the Federal program is found at 25 Pa. Code, Chapter 260a.3(e).
The Commonwealth is not seeking authorization for the following RCRA revisions that occurred between July 7, 1999 and June 28, 2000, which contain elements of the Federal used oil regulations. The Commonwealth's used oil regulations are being revised to resemble more closely the Federal standards.
There are no differences in the provisions being authorized today. The Commonwealth's provisions for which it is seeking authorization are identical to the Federal provisions because the Commonwealth has incorporated the Federal provisions by reference.
After authorization, Pennsylvania will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which it issued prior to the effective date of this authorization. Until such time as formal transfer of EPA permit responsibility to Pennsylvania occurs and EPA terminates its permit, EPA and Pennsylvania agree to coordinate the administration of permits in order to maintain consistency. EPA will not issue any additional new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in Section G after the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Pennsylvania is not yet authorized.
Pennsylvania is not seeking authorization to operate the program on Indian lands, since there are no Federally-recognized Indian Lands in Pennsylvania.
Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA does this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. EPA reserves the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart NN, for this authorization of Pennsylvania's program changes until a later date.
This rule only authorizes hazardous waste requirements pursuant to RCRA 3006 and imposes no requirements other than those imposed by State law (
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document amends the Commission's rules to make an additional 255 megahertz of spectrum available in the 5.470-5.725 GHz band for unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices, including Radio Local Area Networks (RLANs). This action will align the frequency bands used by U-NII devices in the United States with bands in other parts of the world, thus decreasing development and manufacturing costs for U.S. manufacturers by allowing for the same products to be used in most parts of the world. We believe that the increased demand that will result from expanding the markets for U-NII devices, coupled with the operational flexibility provided by the U-NII rules, will lead manufacturers to develop a wide range of new and innovative unlicensed devices and thereby increase wireless broadband access and investment.
Effective February 19, 2004.
Ahmed Lahjouji, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2061, TTY (202) 418-2989, e-mail
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, ET Docket 03-122, FCC 03-287, adopted November 12, 2003, and released November 18, 2003. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at:
1. The Report amends part 15 of our rules to make an additional 255 megahertz of spectrum available in the 5.470—5.725 GHz band for unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices, including Radio Local Area Networks (RLANs). This action aligns the frequency bands used by U-NII devices in the United States with bands in other parts of the world, thus decreasing development and manufacturing costs for U.S. manufacturers by allowing for the same products to be used in most parts of the world. We believe that the increased demand that will result from expanding the markets for U-NII devices, coupled with the operational flexibility provided by the U-NII rules, will lead manufacturers to develop a wide range of new and innovative unlicensed devices and thereby increase wireless broadband access and investment.
2. There has been tremendous growth in demand for unlicensed wireless devices in recent years, particularly for devices used for wireless local area networking and broadband access to the internet. Sales of wireless local area network equipment have grown more than 150% since the year 2000. Companies are now offering broadband
3. In addition to making more spectrum available for use by U-NII devices, we are taking steps to minimize the potential for these devices to cause interference to existing operations. Specifically, we are amending the Table of Frequency Allocations in Part 2 of the rules by: (1) Upgrading the Federal Government Radiolocation Service in the 5.46-5.65 GHz band and the non-Federal Government Radiolocation Service in the 5.47-5.65 GHz band to primary status; and (2) adding primary Federal Government allocations and secondary non-Federal Government allocations for the Space Research Service (active) (SRS) in the 5.35-5.57 GHz band and for the Earth Exploration-Satellite Service (active) (EESS) in the 5.46-5.57 GHz band. In addition, we are modifying certain technical requirements for U-NII devices. The amendments made herein are generally consistent with the U.S. proposals for the World Radiocommunication Conference 2003 (WRC-03), and with the resolutions adopted at WRC-03, pertaining to these bands.
4. We continue to believe, and the comments support, our position in the Notice, that the spectrum currently available for U-NII devices is insufficient to support long-term growth for unlicensed wireless broadband devices and networks. We believe that the additional spectrum we are making available for unlicensed wireless broadband devices and networks should provide sufficient spectrum to meet consumers' needs, thereby stimulating investment. Ample evidence exists of the enormous growth in the demand for such devices and services. For example, a number of service providers are currently offering or have announced plans to deploy commercial unlicensed wireless broadband networks. Such networks offer significant benefits for American consumers and businesses, including increased competition with other providers of broadband service, such as cable and digital subscriber line (DSL) broadband services, and additional options in areas unserved by other broadband providers. We also believe that additional spectrum will give U-NII devices and networks more flexibility to avoid interference with other services sharing the existing U-NII bands, thereby improving the quality of service experienced by consumers. For these reasons, we are making an additional 255 megahertz available under the U-NII rules to meet the growing demand for new high data rate devices and services and to enable equipment to use spectrum that is harmonized internationally.
5.
6.
7.
8. We are not persuaded that we should either add or modify our proposed rules as requested by ARRL. As recognized by ARRL, our DFS and TPC requirements, while not specifically designed to protect amateur
9.
10. We proposed to require that U-NII devices continuously monitor their environment for the presence of radar both prior to and during operation. We further proposed to require that U-NII devices use two detection thresholds to ascertain whether radar signals are present. The proposed threshold levels were -62 dBm for devices with a maximum e.i.r.p less than 200 mW and -64 dBm for devices with a maximum e.i.r.p between 200 mW and 1 W averaged, over 1 μs. Because these levels are referenced to a 1 megahertz bandwidth, we also proposed to require that U-NII devices with less than a 1 megahertz bandwidth use a correction factor when determining whether signals are over or below the threshold. In addition, we sought comment on the minimum number of radar pulses necessary, and the observation time required, for reliable detection of a radar signal. We also proposed a definition of DFS that would require a uniform spreading of loading over all available channels. Our proposals were based on an agreement on the use of DFS that was reached by industry, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and the Department of Defense prior to WRC-03.
11. We also sought comment on the proper treatment of U-NII systems where multiple devices operate under the control of a central controller or “master”. Specifically, we proposed to require only the central controller to have DFS capability. We also requested comment on how to identify remote units that operate only under the control of a central controller and whether DFS should be required for devices that operate in absence of controller,
12.
13. We are not requiring U-NII devices to have bandwidths of 1 megahertz or greater as requested by some commenters. The current rules for U-NII operations in the 5.25-5.35 GHz band, which will now extend to the new 5.470-5.725 GHz band, allow U-NII operations with bandwidths of less than 1 megahertz with a penalty in the form of reduced power levels for such devices. This approach provides incentives for manufacturers to develop broadband applications as was intended, but does not foreclose the ability for manufacturers to produce U-NII devices having bandwidths less than 1 MHz. The requirement that such devices operate with reduced power also diminishes their ability to cause interference.
14. We are adopting our proposal to exempt remote devices that are under the control of a central controller from the DFS requirement. The exclusion of such “client” devices from the radar detection and DFS functions is an integral part of the industry/Government pre-WRC-03 agreement and is also consistent with the final ITU Recommendation. However, we are not exempting controller devices or “masters” from the DFS requirement. We note that exempting a controller device from the DFS requirement would be both inconsistent with both pre-WRC-03 agreements and WRC-03 resolutions. We also agree with Proxim that it shouldn't be necessary to identify remote devices operating under control of a master other than at the time of product certification, since any devices operating without the control of a master will have the DFS capability as required for product certification. With respect to
15. Finally, we agree with Cisco that codifying requirements for a minimum number of pulses and observation time required to reliably detect the radar signals before the work on compliance testing procedures is completed could be overly burdensome and limit the flexibility for DFS implementations in particular devices. These parameters will be addressed under the compliance test procedures, as described below. Additionally, several commenters also requested that we distinguish between the DFS “mechanism” and the “radar detection” function. We are clarifying the rules to indicate that radar detection (sub-function) is part of the overall DFS function. Finally, we are adopting rules to clarify DFS detection that require a master device and associated client devices to dedicate periods of no transmissions before, during, or after each packet or frame. During these listen periods, successive averaging periods, not to exceed 1 microsecond, will be used and any power level above the detection threshold found in any one of these averaging periods will trigger the DFS detection circuit.
16.
17.
18. We recognize that the benefits of requiring a well defined TPC algorithm must be weighed against the burden it would impose. We agree with commenters that codifying a specific TPC algorithm into our rules is likely to hinder innovation, and therefore, eventually, increase equipment costs. We, therefore, decline to adopt requirements for a specific TPC triggering mechanism into our rules. Instead, we will require applicants seeking equipment authorization for U-NII devices to provide a statement in their certification application explaining how the equipment complies with our TPC rules.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 as amended,
24. This Report and Order amends part 15 of our rules governing the operation of unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices, including Radio Local Area Networks (RLANs), to make available an additional 255 megahertz of spectrum in the 5.47-5.725 GHz band for the growth and development of unlicensed wireless broadband networks. This action responds to the petition for rule making submitted by the Wireless Ethernet Compatibility Alliance (WECA—now known as Wi-Fi Alliance).
25. In addition to making more spectrum available for use by U-NII devices, the Report and Order also makes several other rule changes in the 5 GHz band that will further facilitate the use of this band for U-NII devices, while at the same time ensuring sufficient protection for various incumbents in the band. Specifically, it modifies the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations in part 2 of the rules to upgrade the status of the Federal Government Radiolocation service to primary in the 5.46-5.65 GHz band. It similarly upgrades the non-Federal Government radiolocation service to primary in the 5.47-5.65 GHz band. It further adds primary allocations for the Federal Government and the non-Federal Government Space Research Service (active) (SRS) in the 5.35-5.46 GHz band and the Earth Exploration-Satellite Service (active) (EESS) and SRS (active) in the 5.46-5.57 GHz band.
26. The Report and Order also modified certain technical requirements for U-NII devices in the part 15 rules. In addition to applying the existing technical requirements for the 5.250-5.350 GHz sub-band to the new 5.470-5.725 GHz band, it requires that U-NII devices operating in both the existing 5.25-5.35 GHz sub-band and the new 5.470-5.725 GHz sub-band employ a listen-before-talk mechanism called dynamic frequency selection (DFS). DFS is an interference avoidance mechanism. Prior to the start of any transmissions, and through constant monitoring, the device (
27. The Report and Order also requires a transmit power control (TPC) mechanism in both the existing 5.25-5.35 GHz sub-band and the new 5.470-5.725 GHz sub-band to further reduce the potential for impact on EESS and SRS operations. TPC can generally be defined as a mechanism that regulates a device's transmit power in response to an input signal or a condition (
28. U-NII devices currently operate in the 5.25-5.35 GHz band without DFS capability. As a result, some period of time will be needed to implement the new DFS requirement for U-NII equipment operating in the 5.25-5.35 GHz band. The Report and Order requires U-NII equipment operating in the 5.25-5.35 GHz band that are authorized under the certification procedures on or after January 20, 2005 to comply with the DFS and TPC requirements specified in § 15.407 of the rules. U-NII equipment operating in the 5.25-5.35 GHz band that are imported or marketed January 20, 2006 shall comply with the DFS and TPC requirements in § 15.407 of the rules.
29. We received no comments directly in response to the IRFA in this proceeding. We did, however, receive a comment from one small business, ArcWave, which stated that its use of the DOCSIS protocol will be compromised by the imposition of the DFS feature.
30. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein.
31. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to unlicensed communications devices manufacturers. Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition application to manufacturers of Radio and Television Broadcasting and Communications Equipment. According to the SBA regulations, unlicensed transmitter manufacturers must have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business concern.
32. Part 15 transmitters are already required to be authorized under the Commission's certification procedures as a prerequisite to marketing and importation. Under the amendments in the NPRM, manufacturers will be required to demonstrate that U-NII devices operating in the bands 5.250-5.350 GHz and 5.470-5.725 GHz have Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS) Capabilities and transmit power control (TPC) capabilities. The reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with these equipment authorizations would not be changed by the rule revisions in the Report and Order.
33. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
34. We have taken a significant step to minimize economic impact to small entities. As described in the Report and Order, we have provided a transition period for the U-NII devices operating in the 5.25-5.35 GHz band.
35. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including the FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
36. Pursuant to sections 1, 4, 301, 302(a), 303, 307, 309, 316, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154, 301, 302(a), 303, 307, 309, 316, 332, 334, and 336, the Report and Order
37. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Communications equipment, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
5.446A The use of the bands 5150-5350 MHz and 5470-5725 MHz by the stations in the mobile service shall be in accordance with Resolution 229 (WRC-03).
5.446B In the band 5150-5250 MHz, stations in the mobile service shall not claim protection from earth stations in the fixed-satellite service. No. 5.43A does not apply to the mobile service with respect to fixed-satellite service earth stations.
5.447
5.447E
5.447F In the band 5250-5350 MHz, stations in the mobile service shall not claim protection from the radiolocation service, the Earth exploration-satellite service (active) and the space research service (active). These services shall not impose on the mobile service more stringent protection criteria, based on system characteristics and interference criteria, than those stated in Recommendations ITU-R M.1638 and ITU-R SA.1632.
5.448
5.448A The Earth exploration-satellite (active) and space research (active) services in the frequency band 5250-5350 MHz shall not claim protection from the radiolocation service. No. 5.43A does not apply.
5.448B The Earth exploration-satellite service (active) operating in the band 5350-5570 MHz and space research service (active) operating in the band 5460-5570 MHz shall not cause harmful interference to the aeronautical radionavigation service in the band 5350-5460 MHz, the radionavigation service in the band 5460-5470 MHz and the maritime radionavigation service in the band 5470-5570 MHz.
5.448C The space research service (active) operating in the band 5350-5460 MHz shall not cause harmful interference to nor claim protection from other services to which this band is allocated.
5.448D In the frequency band 5350-5470 MHz, stations in the radiolocation service shall not cause harmful interference to, nor claim protection from, radar systems in the aeronautical radionavigation service operating in accordance with No. 5.449.
5.450
5.450A In the band 5470-5725 MHz, stations in the mobile service shall not claim protection from radiodetermination services. Radiodetermination services shall not impose on the mobile service more stringent protection criteria, based on system characteristics and interference criteria, than those stated in Recommendation ITU-R M.1638.
5.450B In the frequency band 5470-5650 MHz, stations in the radiolocation service, except ground-based radars used for meteorological purposes in the band 5600-5650 MHz, shall not cause harmful interference to, nor claim protection from, radar systems in the maritime radionavigation service.
5.453
5.454
5.455
US50 In the band 5470-5650 MHz, the radiolocation service may be authorized for non-Federal Government use on the condition that harmful interference is not caused to the maritime radionavigation service or to the Federal Government radiolocation service.
US51 In the band 9300-9500 MHz, the radiolocation service may be authorized for non-Federal Government use on the condition that harmful interference is not caused to the Federal Government radiolocation service.
US390 Federal Government stations in the space research service (active) operating in the band 5350-5460 MHz shall not cause harmful interference to, nor claim protection from, Federal and non-Federal Government stations in the aeronautical radionavigation service nor Federal Government stations in the radiolocation service.
G130 Federal Government stations in the radiolocation service operating in the band 5350-5470 MHz, shall not cause harmful interference to, nor claim protection from, Federal stations in the aeronautical radionavigation service operating in accordance with ITU
G131 Federal Government stations in the radiolocation service operating in the band 5470-5650 MHz, with the exception of ground-based radars used for meteorological purposes operating in the band 5600-5650 MHz, shall nor cause harmful interference to, nor claim protection from, Federal Government stations in the maritime radionavigation service.
47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 304, 307 and 544A.
(l) U-NII equipment operating in the 5.25-5.35 GHz band for which applications for certification are filed on or after January 20, 2005 shall comply with the DFS and TPC requirements specified in § 15.407. U-NII equipment operating in the 5.25-5.35 GHz band that are imported or marketed January 20, 2006 shall comply with the DFS and TPC requirements in § 15.407.
This subpart sets out the regulations for unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices operating
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
(r)
(s)
(t)
(a) * * *
(2) For the 5.25-5.35 GHz and 5.47-5.725 GHz bands, the peak transmit power over the frequency bands of operation shall not exceed the lesser of 250 mW or 11 dBm + 10log B, where B is the 26 dB emission bandwidth in megahertz. In addition, the peak power spectral density shall not exceed 11 dBm in any 1 megahertz band. If transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi are used, both the peak transmit power and the peak power spectral density shall be reduced by the amount in dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.
(b) * * *
(3) For transmitters operating in the 5.47-5.725 GHz band: all emissions outside of the 5.47-5.725 GHz band shall not exceed an EIRP of −27 dBm/MHz.
(h) Transmit Power Control (TPC) and Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS).
(1) Transmit power control (TPC). U-NII devices operating in the 5.25-5.35 GHz band and the 5.47-5.725 GHz band shall employ a TPC mechanism. The U-NII device is required to have the capability to operate at least 6 dB below the mean EIRP value of 30 dBm. A TPC mechanism is not required for systems with an e.i.r.p. of less than 500 mW.
(2) Radar Detection Function of Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS). U-NII devices operating in the 5.25-5.35 GHz and 5.47-5.725 GHz bands shall employ a DFS radar detection mechanism to detect the presence of radar systems and to avoid co-channel operation with radar systems. The minimum DFS detection threshold for devices with a maximum e.i.r.p. of 200 mW to 1 W is −64 dBm. For devices that operate with less than 200 mW e.i.r.p. the minimum detection threshold is −62 dBm. The detection threshold is the received power averaged over 1 microsecond referenced to a 0 dBi antenna. The DFS process shall be required to provide a uniform spreading of the loading over all the available channels.
(i) Operational Modes. The DFS requirement applies to the following operational modes:
(A) The requirement for channel availability check time applies in the master operational mode.
(B) The requirement for channel move time applies in both the master and slave operational modes.
(ii) Channel Availability Check Time. A U-NII device shall check if there is a radar system already operating on the channel before it can initiate a transmission on a channel and when it has to move to a new channel. The U-NII device may start using the channel if no radar signal with a power level greater than the interference threshold values listed in paragraph (h)(2) of this part, is detected within 60 seconds.
(iii) Channel Move Time. After a radar's presence is detected, all transmissions shall cease on the operating channel within 10 seconds. Transmissions during this period shall consist of normal traffic for a maximum of 200 ms after detection of the radar signal. In addition, intermittent management and control signals can be sent during the remaining time to facilitate vacating the operating channel.
(iv) Non-occupancy Period. A channel that has been flagged as containing a radar system, either by a channel availability check or in-service monitoring, is subject to a non-occupancy period of at least 30 minutes. The non-occupancy period starts at the time when the radar system is detected.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
The Federal Communications Commission has received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the new public information collection, Digital Broadcast Content Protection, MB Docket 02-230, OMB Control Number 3060-1049. Therefore, the Commission announces that OMB Control No. 3060-1049 and associated rules 47 CFR 73.9002 and 73.9008 are effective January 20, 2004.
The rules in 47 CFR 73.9002 and 73.9008 published at 68 FR 67599 (December 3, 2003) are effective January 20, 2004.
The Federal Communications Commission has received OMB approval for a new information collection in Digital Broadcast Content Protection, MB Docket No. 02-230, 68 FR 67599, December 3, 2003, which includes interim approval procedures for digital content protection and recording technologies, as well as written commitment regimes for manufacturers and importers of both demodulators and products where the demodulator and transport stream processor are physically separate. Through this document, the Commission announces that it received this approval on January 8, 2004; OMB Control No. 3060-1049. The effective date for this collection and associated rules 47 CFR 73.9002 and 73.9008 is January 20, 2004.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Questions concerning the OMB control numbers and expiration dates should be directed to Leslie F. Smith, Federal Communications Commission, (202) 418-0217 or via the Internet at
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment.
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Ohio regulatory program (the “Ohio program”) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Ohio proposes to revise their regulatory program to reflect changes promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency related to coal remining operations. Ohio intends to revise its program to be consistent with the corresponding Federal regulations.
This document gives the times and locations that the Ohio program and proposed amendment to that program are available for your inspection, the comment period during which you may submit written comments on the amendment, and the procedures that we will follow for the public hearing, if one is requested.
We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4 p.m., (local time), February 19, 2004. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the amendment on February 17, 2004. We will accept requests to speak until 4 p.m., local time, on February 4, 2004.
You should mail or hand deliver written comments and requests to speak at the hearing to Mr. George Rieger, at the address listed below.
You may review copies of the Ohio program, this amendment, a listing of any scheduled public hearings, and all written comments received in response to this document at the addresses listed below during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. You may receive one free copy of the amendment by contacting Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center.
Mr. George Rieger, Chief, Pittsburgh Field Division, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center, 3 Parkway Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15220, Telephone: (412) 937-2153. E-mail:
Mr. Robert Baker, Division of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1855 Fountain Square Court-Bldg. H-2, Columbus, Ohio 43224, Telephone: (614) 265-1092.
George Rieger, Telephone: (412) 937-2153. Internet:
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of the Act... and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to the Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Ohio program on August 16, 1982. You can find background information on the Ohio program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the Ohio program in the August 16, 1982,
By letter dated November 7, 2003, Ohio sent us a proposed amendment to its program (Administrative Record No. OH-2184-00) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
OAC Section 1501:13-4-15, Authorization to conduct coal mining on pollution abatement areas, is amended by adding the following under Section 1501:13-4-15(C)(2)(a), (b) and (c):
(1) If the Chief determines that it is infeasible to collect samples for establishing the baseline pollution load and that remining will result in significant improvement that would not otherwise occur, then the numeric effluent limitations do not apply to the pollution abatement area. Pre-existing discharges for which it is infeasible to collect samples for determination of baseline pollutant levels include, but are not limited to, discharges that exist as a diffuse groundwater flow that cannot be assessed via sample collection; a base flow to a receiving stream that cannot be monitored separate from the receiving stream; a discharge on a steep or hazardous slope that is inaccessible for sample collection; a pre-existing discharge that is too large to adequately assess via sample collection; or a number of pre-existing discharges so extensive that monitoring of individual discharges is infeasible.
(2) If the Chief approves a non-numeric NPDES remining permit the operator shall implement a pollution abatement plan incorporating BMP's designed to reduce the pollutant levels of acidity, iron, manganese, and solids in pre-existing discharges. The monitoring plan will be determined by the Chief. An operator who obtains a non-numeric NPDES remining permit will not be subject to paragraphs (F)(2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (H)(3)(c) of this section.
(3) TSS [Total Suspended Solids] and SS [Settleable Solids] are exempt during
OAC Section 1501:13-4-15(E)(3) which reads “notify the Chief immediately prior to the start and upon completion of each step of the abatement plan; and” has been deleted.
OAC Section 1501:13-4-15(F)(1) is revised as follows:
For any pre-existing discharges from or on the pollutional abatement area, that are commingled with active mining wastewater, the operator shall comply with rule 1501:13-9-04(B) of the Administrative Code, until the pollution abatement plan is implemented and the commingling is ceased.
OAC Section 1501:13-4-5(H)(3)(c) has been revised by the addition of the phrase “the total suspended solids meets the standard NPDES limits” at the end of the provision.
OAC Section 1501:13-1-02. Definitions, include the following revisions:
1. The definition of “acid water” is revised to establish that the standard is “6.5, or a total iron concentration equal to or better than 10 mg/l”.
2. The definition of “Best available technology economically achievable” is revised as “for remining operations means implementation of pollution abatement plan that incorporates Best Management Practices (BMP's) designed to improve pH (as acidity) and reduce pollutant loadings of iron, manganese and sediment to the maximum extent possible from or on the pollution abatement area. (1) BMP's are practices implemented during the mining and reclamation of remining sites that area designed to reduce, if not completely eliminate, the pre-existing water pollution problems. BMP's are tailored to specific mining operations based largely on pre-existing site conditions, hydrology, and geology. BMP's are designed to function in a physical and/or geochemical manner to reduce pollution loadings. These BMP measures include engineering, geochemical, daylighting, regrading, revegetation, diversion ditches or other applicable practices.”
3. The definition of “Pollution abatement area” is revised to include “areas adjacent to and nearby the remining operation that also must be affected to reduce the pollution load of the pre-existing discharges and may include the immediate location of pre-existing discharges”.
4. The definition of “Pre-existing discharge” is revised to add “This term shall include a pre-existing discharge that is relocated as a result of the implementation of best management practices contained in the abatement plan”.
5. The definition of “abatement plan” has been revised by adding a reference to “best management practices” and an example of “daylighting old underground works”.
6. The definition of “base line pollution load” has been revised by deleting the reference to “pH” and adding “* * * net acidity, total iron and total manganese, and total suspended solids * * *”
7. The definition of “Chief” has been revised to be the “Chief of the Division of Mineral Resources Management”.
Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the program.
Send your written comments to OSM at the address given above. Your written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of your recommendations. We will not consider or respond to your comments when developing the final rule if they are received after the close of the comment period (
Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: SATS No. OH-248-FOR,” your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation that we have received your Internet message, contact the Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center at (412) 937-2153.
We will make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during normal business hours. We will not consider anonymous comments. If individual respondents request confidentiality, we will honor their request to the extent allowable by law. Individual respondents who wish to withhold their name or address from public review, except for the city or town, must state this prominently at the beginning of their comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public review in their entirety.
If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under
If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under
This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulations.
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 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, to the extent allowable by law, 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 since each such program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.
This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA. Section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.
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 Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. The basis for this determination is that our decision is on a State regulatory program and does not involve a Federal program involving Indian lands.
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.
Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that a decision on a proposed State regulatory program provision does not constitute a major Federal action within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). A determination has been made that such decisions are categorically excluded from the NEPA process (516 DM 8.4.A).
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 has determined 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, geographic regions, or Federal, State or local governmental agencies; 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 a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on any governmental entity or the private sector.
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes the establishment of a safety zone around a
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 22, 2004.
You may mail comments and related material to Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District (m), Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, or comments and related material may be delivered to Room 1341 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (504) 589-6271. Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District (m) maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the location listed above during the noted time periods.
Lieutenant (LT) Kevin Lynn, Project Manager for Eighth Coast Guard District Commander, Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, telephone (504) 589-6271.
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD08-03-040], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8
We do not plan to hold a public meeting. However, you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District (m) at the address under
The Coast Guard proposes the establishment of a safety zone around a petroleum and gas production facility in the Gulf of Mexico: Magnolia Tension Leg Platform (TLP), Garden Banks 783 “A” (GB 783 “A”), located at position 27°12′13.86″ N, 92°12′09.36″ W. The proposed safety zone would be in effect while the facility is being constructed and after the construction is completed.
This proposed safety zone is in the deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico. For the purposes of this regulation it is considered to be in waters of 304.8 meters (1,000 feet) or greater depth extending to the limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States and extending to a distance up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the sea is measured. Navigation in the area of the proposed safety zone consists of large commercial shipping vessels, fishing vessels, cruise ships, tugs with tows and the occasional recreational vessel. The deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico also includes an extensive system of fairways. The fairway nearest the proposed safety zone is the Gulf Safety Fairway—Aransas Pass Safety Fairway to Southwest Pass Safety Fairway. Significant amounts of vessel traffic occur in or near the various fairways in the deepwater area.
ConocoPhillips has requested that the Coast Guard establish a safety zone in the Gulf of Mexico around the Magnolia TLP construction site and for the zone to remain in effect after construction is completed.
The request for the safety zone was made due to the high level of shipping activity around the site of the facility, safety concerns for the integrity of the structure, and the environment. ConocoPhillips indicated that the location, production level, and personnel levels on board the facility make it highly likely that any allision with the facility during and after construction would result in a catastrophic event.
The Coast Guard has evaluated ConocoPhillips' information and concerns against Eighth Coast Guard District criteria developed to determine if an Outer Continental Shelf facility qualifies for a safety zone. We conclude that the risk of allision to the facility and the potential for loss of life and damage to the environment resulting from such an accident during and following the construction of Magnolia TLP warrants the establishment of this proposed safety zone. The proposed rule would significantly reduce the threat of allisions, oil spills and natural gas releases and increase the safety of life, property, and the environment in the Gulf of Mexico. This proposed regulation is issued pursuant to 14 U.S.C. 85 and 43 U.S.C. 1333 as set out in the authority citation for 33 CFR part 147.
Several factors were considered to determine the necessity of a safety zone for the Magnolia TLP construction site and for a safety zone to remain in effect after the facility is completed: (1) The construction site is located approximately 39 nautical miles south of the Gulf Safety Fairway—Aransas Pass Safety Fairway to Southwest Pass Safety Fairway, (2) the facility will have a high daily production capacity of petroleum oil and gas per day; (3) the facility will be manned; and (4) the facility will be a tension leg platform.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
The impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal because the proposed safety zone will not overlap any of the safety fairways within the Gulf of Mexico.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since the construction site for the Magnolia TLP is located far offshore, few privately owned fishing vessels and recreational boats/yachts operate in the area and alternate routes are available for those vessels. This proposed rule will not impact an attending vessel or vessels less than 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing. Use of an alternate route may cause a vessel to incur a delay of 4 to 10 minutes in arriving at their destinations depending on how fast the vessel is traveling. Therefore, the Coast Guard expects the impact of this proposed rule on small entities to be minimal.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact LT Kevin Lynn, Project Manager for Eighth Coast Guard District Commander, Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, telephone (504) 589-6271.
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the instruction, from further environmental documentation because this rule is not expected to result in any significant environmental impact as described in NEPA. A draft “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a draft “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under
Continental shelf, Marine safety, Navigation (water).
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 147 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 147 continues to read as follows:
14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 147.835 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(1) An attending vessel;
(2) A vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing; or
(3) A vessel authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes the establishment of a safety zone around a petroleum and gas production facility in Mississippi Canyon 474 “A” of the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico while the facility is being constructed and after the construction is completed. The construction site and facility need to be protected from vessels operating outside the normal shipping channels and fairways, and placing a safety zone around this area would significantly reduce the threat of allisions, oil spills and releases of natural gas. The proposed rule would prohibit all vessels from entering or remaining in the specified area around the facility's location except for the following: An attending vessel; a vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing; or a vessel authorized by the Eighth Coast Guard District Commander.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 22, 2004.
You may mail comments and related material to Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District (m), Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, or comments and related material may be delivered to Room 1341 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (504) 589-6271. Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District (m) maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the location listed above during the noted time periods.
Lieutenant (LT) Kevin Lynn, Project Manager for Eighth Coast Guard District Commander, Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, telephone (504) 589-6271.
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD08-03-039], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8
We do not plan to hold a public meeting. However, you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District (m) at the address under
The Coast Guard proposes the establishment of a safety zone around a petroleum and gas production facility in the Gulf of Mexico: Na Kika Floating Oil and Gas Development System (FDS), Mississippi Canyon 474 “A” (MC 474 “A”), located at position 28°31′14.86″ N, 88°17′19.69″ W. The proposed safety zone would be in effect while the facility is being constructed and after the construction is completed.
This proposed safety zone is in the deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico. For the purposes of this regulation it is considered to be in waters of 304.8 meters (1,000 feet) or greater depth extending to the limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States and extending to a distance up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the sea is measured. Navigation in the area of the proposed safety zone consists of large commercial shipping vessels, fishing vessels, cruise ships, tugs with tows and the occasional recreational vessel. The deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico also includes an extensive system of fairways. The fairways nearest the proposed safety zone include the South Pass (Mississippi River) to Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet Channel Fairway and Southwest Pass (Mississippi River) to South Pass (Mississippi River) Safety Fairway. Significant amounts of vessel traffic occur in or near the various fairways in the deepwater area.
Shell Exploration and Production Company, hereafter referred to as “Shell” has requested that the Coast Guard establish a safety zone in the Gulf of Mexico around the Na Kika FDS construction site and for the zone to remain in effect after construction is completed.
The request for the safety zone was made due to the high level of shipping activity around the site of the facility and the safety concerns for construction personnel, the personnel on board the facility after it is completed, and the environment. Shell indicated that the location, production level, and personnel levels on board the facility make it highly likely that any allision with the facility during and after construction would result in a catastrophic event.
The Coast Guard has evaluated Shell's information and concerns against Eighth Coast Guard District criteria developed to determine if an Outer Continental Shelf facility qualifies for a safety zone. We conclude that the risk of allision to the facility and the potential for loss of life and damage to the environment resulting from such an accident during and following the construction of Na Kika FDS warrants the establishment of this proposed safety zone. The proposed rule would significantly reduce the threat of allisions, oil spills, and natural gas releases and increase the safety of life, property, and the environment in the Gulf of Mexico. This proposed regulation is issued pursuant to 14 U.S.C. 85 and 43 U.S.C. 1333 as set out in the authority citation for 33 CFR part 147.
Several factors were considered to determine the necessity of a safety zone for the Na Kika FDS construction site and for a safety zone to remain in effect after the facility is completed: (1) The construction site is located approximately 46 nautical miles east-southeast of the South Pass (Mississippi
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. The impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal because the proposed safety zone will not overlap any of the safety fairways within the Gulf of Mexico.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since the construction site for the Na Kika FDS is located far offshore, few privately owned fishing vessels and recreational boats/yachts operate in the area and alternate routes are available for those vessels. This proposed rule will not impact an attending vessel or vessels less than 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing. Use of an alternate route may cause a vessel to incur a delay of 4 to 10 minutes in arriving at their destinations depending on how fast the vessel is traveling. Therefore, the Coast Guard expects the impact of this proposed rule on small entities to be minimal.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact LT Kevin Lynn, Project Manager for Eighth Coast Guard District Commander, Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, telephone (504) 589-6271.
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the instruction, from further environmental documentation because this rule is not expected to result in any significant environmental impact as described in NEPA. A draft “Environmental Analysis
Continental shelf, Marine safety, Navigation (water).
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 147 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 147 continues to read as follows:
14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 147.833 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(1) An attending vessel;
(2) A vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing; or
(3) A vessel authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of South Dakota on June 27, 2002. The June 27, 2002, submittal consists a revision to the administrative rules of South Dakota. These revisions add a new chapter to regulate fugitive emissions of particulate matter from State facilities and State contractors that conduct a construction activity or continuous operation activity in the Rapid City air quality control zone. The intended effect of this action is to make the revisions to the administrative rules of South Dakota federally enforceable. In the “rules and regulations” section of this
Written comments must be received on or before February 19, 2004.
Written comments may be mailed to Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. Comments may also be submitted electronically, or through hand delivery/courier. Please follow the detailed instructions (part (I)(B)(1)(i) through (iii) of the
Laurel Dygowski, EPA, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Mailcode 8P-AR, Denver, Colorado 80202, (303) 312-6144, e-mail
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Pennsylvania has applied to EPA for final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final authorization to Pennsylvania. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Send your written comments by February 19, 2004.
Send written comments to Charles Bentley, Mailcode 3WC21, RCRA State Programs Branch, U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone number: (215) 814-3379. Comments may also be submitted electronically to:
Charles Bentley, Mailcode 3WC21, RCRA State Programs Branch, U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Phone number: (215) 814-3379.
For additional information, please see the immediate final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; Comments requested.
The Commission seeks comments on a Petition For Rulemaking or, in the Alternative, Petition To Address Referral Issues In A Pending Rulemaking (
Comments are due on or before February 9, 2004, and reply comments are due on or before February 19, 2004.
Federal Communications Commission, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street SW., TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554.
Joi Roberson Nolen, Wireline Competition Bureau, 202-418-1520.
On November 3, 2003, Martha Wright and other prison inmate and non-inmate petitioners (collectively, Petitioners) filed a Petition For Rulemaking or, in the Alternative, Petition To Address Referral Issues In A Pending Rulemaking (
The
This matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail).
The Commission's contractor, Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St. SW., Suite TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554.
Two (2) copies of the comments and reply comments should also be sent to Deena Shetler, Deputy Division Chief, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 5-A221, Washington, DC 20554. Parties are also requested to send a courtesy copy via e-mail to Joi Nolen, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, at
Parties shall also serve one copy with Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 863-2893, or via email to
All documents in CC Docket No. 96-128, including the
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Bitterroot, Flathead, and Lolo National Forests will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to document the analysis and disclose the potential environmental impacts of implementing the actions proposed in revision of the Land and Resource Management Plans for the Bitterroot, Flathead and Lolo National Forests. The proposal seeks to update forest plans and respond to six major needs for change. A Notice of Intent was published May 10, 2002, in the
Initial comments concerning the proposed action should be received in writing, no later than 90 days from the publication of this notice of intent.
Please send comments to: Western Montana Planning Zone Revision Team, Lolo National Forest, Building 24, Fort Missoula, Missoula, MT 59804. Written comments may also be electronically submitted to
Lee Kramer, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Lolo National Forest, Fort Missoula, Bldg. 24, Missoula, MT 59804, phone number (406) 329-3848 or e-mail
We are revising the original Notice of Intent, [
To assist the Forest Service with identification and consideration of issues and concerns regarding the proposed action, comments should be in writing and as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or sections of the proposed action. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementation of procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3.
Additional public comment will be accepted after publication of the DEIS anticipated by March 2005. The Final EIS and Records of Decision for the Revised Forest Plans are expected in 2006.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice lists the newspapers that will be used by all Ranger Districts, Forests, Grasslands, and the Regional Office of the Northern Region to publish legal notices for public comment and decisions subject to appeal and predecisional administrative review under 36 CFR parts 215, 217, and 218. The intended effect of this action is to inform interested members of the public which newspapers will be used to publish legal notices for public comment or decisions; thereby allowing them to receive constructive notice of a decision, to provide clear evidence of timely notice, and to achieve consistency in administering the appeals process.
Publication of legal notices in the listed newspapers will begin with decisions subject to appeal that are made on or after January 15, 2004. The list of newspapers will remain in effect until another notice is published in the
Appeals and Litigation Group Leader; Northern Region; P.O. Box 7669; Missoula, Montana 59807. Phone: (406) 329-3696.
The newspapers to be used are as follows:
Supplemental notices may be placed in any newspaper, but time frames/deadlines will be calculated based upon notices in newspapers of record listed above.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Tuolumne County Resource Advisory Committee will meet on January 26, 2004, at the City of Sonora Fire Department, in Sonora, California. The purpose of the meeting is to review project status and define work for 2004.
The meeting will be held January 26, 2004, from 12 p.m. to 3 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the City of Sonora Fire Department located at 201 South Shepherd Street, in Sonora, California (CA 95370).
Pat Kaunert, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Stanislaus National Forest, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, CA 95370 (209) 532-3671; e-mail
Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Review, propose, and vote on changes to the Highway 108 Corridor Cooperative Fire Defense Coordinator position, formerly approved on August 19, 2002; (2) Consider possible spring 2004 field trips; (3) Discuss ways and means of monitoring the status of funded projects; (4) Coordinate public information to solicit new projects for consideration in funding year 2004; (5) Report out on November 13, 2003 statewide RAC meeting; (6) Public Comments. This meeting is open to the public.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a conference call of the Texas State Advisory Committee in the Western Region will convene at 1 p.m. (PST) and adjourn at 2:30 p.m., Friday, February 13, 2004. The purpose of the conference call is to discuss Committee activities and priorities.
This conference call is available to the public through the following call-in number: 1-800-659-8292, access code number 21317219. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls not initiated using the provided call-in number or over wireless lines and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls using the call-in number over land-line connections. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and access code.
To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting Thomas Pilla of the Western Regional Office, (213) 894-3437, by 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 12, 2004.
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of the Chairpersons of each advisory committee in the Western Region
The conference call is available to the public through the following call-in number 1-800-659-8294, access code number 21288915. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls not initiated using the provided call-in number or over wireless lines and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls using the call-in number over land-line connections. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and access code.
To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting Thomas Pilla of the Western Regional Office, (213) 894-3437, by 3 p.m. on Thursday, January 22, 2004.
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
11 a.m., Friday, February 6, 2004.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, Room 1012.
Closed.
Surveillance Matters.
Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
11 a.m., Friday, February 13, 2004.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, Room 1012.
Closed.
Surveillance Matters.
Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
11 a.m., Friday, February 20, 2004.
1155 21st St., Washington, DC, Room 1012.
Closed.
Surveillance Matters.
Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
11 a.m., Friday, February 27, 2004.
1155 21st St., Washington, DC, Room 1012.
Closed.
Surveillance Matters.
Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., February 3, 2004.
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Board of Regents Conference Room (D3001), 4301 Jones Bridge Road, Bethesda, MD 20814-4799
Open—under “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)).
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 February 19, 2004.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of
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,
State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs; individuals or household, not-for-profit institutions.
Responses: 59.
Burden Hours: 708.
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 Shelia Carey at her e-mail address
1. A grantee under the Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) Program, authorized under Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), may not receive a grant under any Title III, Part A Program. Further, a current Developing HSI Program grantee may not give up its grant under the Developing HSI Program in order to receive a grant under any Title III, Part A Program.
2. An institution that does not fall within the limitation described in Note 1 may apply for a FY 2004 grant under all Title III, Part A Programs for which it is eligible, as well as under the Developing HSI Program. However, a successful applicant may receive only one grant.
For specific funding information, see the chart in the Award Information section of this notice.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. Applicants should periodically check the Title III, Part A Web
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. Applicants should periodically check the Title III, Part A Web site for further information on these programs. The address is:
1. A grantee under the Developing HSI Program, authorized under Title V of the HEA, may not receive a grant under any Title III, Part A Program. Further, a current Developing HSI Program grantee may not give up its grant under the Developing HSI Program in order to receive a grant under any Title III, Part A Program.
2. An institution that does not fall within the limitation described in Note 1 may apply for a FY 2004 grant under all Title III, Part A Programs for which it is eligible, as well as under the Developing HSI Program. However, a successful applicant may receive only one grant.
1.
1.
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 a copy of the application package in an alternative format (
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles and headings. You may single space abstracts, footnotes, quotations, references, captions, tables and forms (including the ED Forms), however, you must still use font size 12.
• Use a font that is either 12-point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). The page limit applies to all parts of the application.
We will reject your application if—
• You apply these standards and exceed the page limit; or
• You apply other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Some of the procedures in these instructions for transmitting applications differ from those in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) (34 CFR 75.102). Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, these amendments make procedural changes only and do not establish new substantive policy. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), the Secretary has determined that proposed rulemaking is not required.
We are requiring that applications for grants for FY 2004 under Title III, Part A Programs—CFDA Numbers 84.031A, 84.031N, 84.031T and 84.031W be submitted electronically using the Electronic Grant Application System (e-Application) available through the Department's e-GRANTS system. The e-GRANTS system is accessible through its portal page at:
If you are unable to submit an application through the e-GRANTS system, you may submit a written request for a waiver of the electronic submission requirement. In your request, you should explain the reason or reasons that prevent you from using the Internet to submit the application. Address your request to: Louis J. Venuto, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K. Street, NW., 6th Floor, room 6071, Washington, DC 20006-8513. Please submit your request no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
If, within two weeks of the application deadline date, you are unable to submit an application electronically, you must submit a paper application by the application deadline date in accordance with the transmittal instructions in the application package. The paper application must include a written request for a waiver documenting the reasons that prevented you from using the Internet to submit your application.
We are continuing to expand our pilot project for electronic submission of applications to include additional formula grant programs and additional discretionary grant competitions. The Title III, Part A Programs—CFDA
The pilot project involves the use of e-Application. If you use e-Application, you will be entering data online while completing your application. You may not e-mail a soft copy of a grant application to us. The data you enter online will be saved into a database. We shall continue to evaluate the success of e-Application and solicit suggestions for its improvement.
If you participate in e-Application, please note the following:
• When you enter the e-Application system, you will find information about its hours of operation. We strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to initiate an e-Application package.
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit a grant application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit an application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including the Application for Federal Education Assistance (ED 424), Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524, and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• Your e-Application must comply with any page limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement, which will include a PR/Award number (an identifying number unique to your application).
• Within three working days after submitting your electronic application, fax a signed copy of the Application for Federal Education Assistance (ED 424) to the Application Control Center after following these steps:
1. Print ED 424 from e-Application.
2. The institution's Authorizing Representative must sign this form.
3. Place the PR/Award number in the upper right hand corner of the hard copy signature page of the ED 424.
4. Fax the signed ED 424 to the Application Control Center at (202) 260-1349.
• We may request that you give us original signatures on other forms at a later date.
1. You are a registered user of e-Application and you have initiated an e-Application for this competition; and
2. (a) The e-Application system must be unavailable for 60 minutes or more between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date; or
(b) The e-Application system must be unavailable for any period of time during the last hour of operation (that is, for any period of time between 3:30 and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time) on the application deadline date.
We must acknowledge and confirm these periods of unavailability before granting you an extension. To request this extension or to confirm our acknowledgement of any system unavailability, you may contact either (1) the person listed elsewhere in this notice under
You may access the electronic grant application for Title III, Part A Programs at:
1.
2.
For the purpose of these funding considerations, an applicant must demonstrate that the market value of its endowment fund per FTE student and library expenditures per FTE student, were less than the average expenditure per FTE student when calculated using the data submitted by applicants for the year 2000-2001.
If a tie remains, after applying the additional point(s) we will determine the ranking of applicants based on the lowest combined library expenditures per FTE student and endowment values per FTE student.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4. Performance Measures: The Secretary has established the following key performance measures for assessing the effectiveness of the Title III, Part A Programs: (1) The percentage of Title III, Part A project goals relating to the improvement of academic quality that are met or exceeded will increase or be maintained over time. (2) The percentage of Title III, Part A goals relating to the improvement of student services and student outcomes that are met or exceeded will increase or be maintained over time. (3) The percentage of Title III, Part A project goals relating to the improvement of institutional management and fiscal stability that are met or exceeded will increase or be maintained over time.
Louis J. Venuto, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20006-8513. Telephone: (202) 502-7777 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (
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
1. A grantee under the Developing HSI Program, authorized under Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), may not receive a grant under any Title III, Part A Program. The Title III, Part A Programs include the Strengthening Institutions, American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions Programs. Further, a current Developing HSI Program grantee may not give up its grant in order to receive a grant under any Title III, Part A Program.
2. An HSI that does not fall within the limitation described in Note 1 may apply for a FY 2004 grant under all Title III, Part A Programs for which it is eligible, as well as under the Developing HSI Program. However, a successful applicant may receive only one grant.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. Applicants should periodically check the HSI Program Web site for further information. The address is:
In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(iv), the following priorities are from sections 511(d) and 514(b) of the HEA.
These priorities are:
We are particularly interested in applications that address the following invitational priorities with respect to cooperative arrangement grant applications only.
These priorities are:
Cooperative arrangements between two-year and four-year institutions that aim to increase the transfer of Hispanic students from two-year to four-year institutions and the retention of Hispanic students at the four-year institutions.
Cooperative arrangements between institutions that develop and share
Cooperative arrangements between institutions where one of the institutions in the arrangement is not a current grantee under the Developing HSI Program.
Cooperative arrangements that include institutions from more than one university or college system.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. Applicants should periodically check the HSI Program Web site for further information. The address is:
1.
1. A grantee under the Developing HSI Program, authorized under the HEA, may not receive a grant under any Title III, Part A Program. The Title III, Part A Programs include the Strengthening Institutions, American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions Programs. Further, a current Developing HSI Program grantee may not give up its grant in order to receive a grant under any Title III, Part A Program.
2. An HSI that does not fall within the limitation described in Note 1 may apply for a FY 2004 grant under all Title III, Part A Programs for which it is eligible, as well as under the Developing HSI Program. However, a successful applicant may receive only one grant.
1.
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 a copy of the application package in an alternative format (
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles and headings. You may single space the abstract, footnotes, quotations, references, captions, tables, and forms (including the ED Forms), however, you must still use font size 12.
• Use a font that is size 12.
We will reject your application if—
• You apply these standards and exceed the page limit; or
• You apply other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit.
3.
The dates and times for the transmittal of applications by mail or by hand (including a courier service or commercial carrier) are in the application package for this program. The application package also specifies the hours of operation of the e-Application Web site.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
4.
5.
6.
Some of the procedures in these instructions for transmitting applications differ from those in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) (34 CFR 75.102). Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, these amendments make procedural changes only and do not establish new substantive policy. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), the Secretary has determined that proposed rulemaking is not required.
We are requiring that applications for grants under the Developing HSI Program—CFDA Number 84.031S be submitted electronically using the Electronic Grant Application System (e-Application) available through the Department's e-GRANTS system. The e-GRANTS system is accessible through its portal page at:
If you are unable to submit an application through the e-GRANTS system, you may submit a written request for a waiver of the electronic submission requirement. In your request, you should explain the reason or reasons that prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application. Address your request to: Darlene Collins, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 6032, Washington, DC 20006-8513. Please submit your request no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
If, within two weeks of the application deadline date, you are unable to submit an application electronically, you must submit a paper application by the application deadline date in accordance with the transmittal instructions in the application package. The paper application must include a written request for a waiver documenting the reasons that prevented you from using the Internet to submit your application.
The pilot project involves the use of e-Application. If you use e-Application, you will be entering data online while completing your application. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us. The data you enter online will be saved into a database. We shall continue to evaluate the success of e-Application and solicit suggestions for its improvement.
If you participate in e-Application, please note the following:
• When you enter the e-Application system, you will find information about its hours of operation. We strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to initiate an e-Application package.
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit a grant application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit an application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including the Application for Federal Education Assistance (ED 424), Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• Your e-Application must comply with any page limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement, which will include a PR/Award number (an identifying number unique to your application).
• Within three working days after submitting your electronic application, fax a signed copy of the Application for Federal Education Assistance (ED 424) to the Application Control Center after following these steps:
1. Print ED 424 from e-Application.
2. The institution's Authorizing Representative must sign this form.
3. Place the PR/Award number in the upper right hand corner of the hard copy signature page of the ED 424.
4. Fax the signed ED 424 to the Application Control Center at (202) 260-1349.
• We may request that you give us original signatures on other forms at a later date.
1. You are a registered user of e-Application and you have initiated an e-Application for this competition; and
2. (a) The e-Application system is unavailable for 60 minutes or more between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date; or
(b) The e-Application system is unavailable for any period of time during the last hour of operation (that is, for any period of time between 3:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time) on the application deadline date.
We must acknowledge and confirm these periods of unavailability before granting you an extension. To request this extension or to confirm our acknowledgement of any system unavailability, you may contact either (1) the person listed elsewhere in this notice under
You may access the electronic grant application for the Developing HSI Program at:
1.
2.
For the purpose of these funding considerations, an applicant must be able to demonstrate that the market
If a tie still remains after applying the additional point(s), we will determine the ranking of applicants based on the lowest combined library expenditures per FTE student and endowment values per FTE student.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
Darlene Collins, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20006-8513. Telephone: (202) 502-7576 or by e-mail:
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 (
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
The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification.
Take notice that on January 2, 2004, as amended on January 8, 2004, the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy, by Rate Order No. WAPA-106, did confirm and approve on an interim basis, to be effective on March 1, 2004, ending February 28, 2009, the Western Area Power Administration's Rate Schedules L-NT1, L-FPT1, L-NFPT1, L-AS1, L-AS2, L-AS3, L-AS4, L-AS5, L-AS6, and L-AS7 for Loveland Area Projects Transmission and Ancillary Services.
The Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy states that these rates will be in effect pending the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) approval of these or of substitute rates on a final basis through February 28, 2009.
Take notice that on January 2, 2004, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), in compliance with the Commission's November 17 Order in Docket No. EL01-111-004,
PJM states that copies of this filing have been served on all PJM members and utility regulatory commissions in the PJM Region and on all parties listed on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.
Take notice that on January 2, 2004, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO), pursuant to the Commission's November 17, 2003, Order in Docket No. EL02-111-004,
The Midwest ISO has also requested waiver of the service requirements set forth in 18 CFR 385.2010. The Midwest ISO states it has electronically served a copy of this filing, with attachments, upon all Midwest ISO Members, Member representatives of Transmission Owners and Non-Transmission Owners, the Midwest ISO Advisory Committee participants, as well as all state commissions within the region and in addition, the filing has been electronically posted on the Midwest ISO's Web site at
Take notice that on January 2, 2004, American Electric Power Service Corporation on behalf of Appalachian Power Service Company, Columbus Southern Power Company, Indiana Michigan Power Company, Kentucky Power Company, Kingsport Power Company, Ohio Power Company and Wheeling Power Company (AEP), Commonwealth Edison Company and Commonwealth Edison Company of Indiana, Inc. (ComEd) and Dayton Power and Light Company (DP&L) tendered for filing revisions to their respective Open Access Transmission Tariffs in compliance with the Commission's Order issued on November 17, 2003, in Docket Nos. EL03-212-000 and 001, 105 FERC § 61,216 (2003).
AEP, ComEd and DP&L state that they have served copies of this filing on all parties on the service list for this proceeding, as well as on state public utility commissions having jurisdiction over the companies.
Take notice that on January 2, 2004, Ameren Services Company (Ameren) filed revisions to its open access transmission tariff (OATT) to comply with the Commission's Order, issued November 17, 2003, Docket Nos. EL03-212-000 and 001. Ameren proposes, effective April 1, 2004, to eliminate through and out rates for transactions exiting the Ameren system and sinking in the areas served by the open access transmission tariffs of the Midwest Independent System Operator Inc., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,
American Electric Power Company (East Zone), Commonwealth Edison Company and Commonwealth Edison Company Indiana, Dayton Power and Light Company and Illinois Power Company. The exceptions are long term firm transactions already in effect on April 1, 2004 which will continue to pay the current rates under the Ameren OATT. Ameren states that it has served copies of this filing on all of the parties listed in the official service list maintained in Docket No. EL03-212-000, the Missouri Public Service Commission and the Illinois Commerce Commission.
Take notice that on January 9, 2004, InterGen Services, Inc., (InterGen) filed a Complaint, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, against Entergy Services, Inc., and Entergy Gulf States, Inc. (collectively, Entergy). The Complaint asserts that Entergy is violating the Commission's Interconnection Policy by refusing to allow InterGen to use its transmission credits in a flexible manner as required by Entergy Services, Inc.,
101 FERC § 61,289 (2002). InterGen states that copies of the Complaint were served on Entergy.
Take notice that on January 2, 2004, PPL Wallingford Energy LLC, in compliance with the Commission(s December 22, 2003, Order,105 FERC & 61,324 a filing providing an explanation of costs allocated to PPL Wallingford Energy LLC.
Take notice that on January 7, 2004, ISO New England Inc. (ISO) submitted a Compliance Filing in the above-captioned proceeding as directed by the Commission in its December 22, 2003, Order on Rehearing and Compliance, 105 FERC 61,324. The ISO states that copies of the filing have been served on all parties to the above-captioned proceeding.
Take notice that on January 2, 2004, Devon Power LLC, Middletown Power LLC, Montville Power LLC, Norwalk Power LLC (collectively Applicants) and NRG Power Marketing Inc., tendered for filing in compliance with the Commission's Order, issued December 22, 2003, 105 FERC 61,324 Fourth Revised Cost of Service Agreements among each of the Applicants, NRG Power Marketing Inc, as agent for each Applicant, and ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE).
Applicants state that they have served a copy of the filing on ISO-NE and to each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in the above-captioned proceedings.
Take notice that on January 2, 2004, Agway Energy Services-PA, Inc. (Agway) tendered for filing an Amendment to its Notice of Cancellation for its market-based rate authority filed on December 12, 2003. Agway is requesting an effective date of December 23, 2003.
Take notice that on January 5, 2004, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed an errata to replace an exhibit and correct a tariff sheet to its December 24, 2003, filing of Transmission Owner Tariff (TO Tariff) rate for the Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment (TRBAA), the Reliability Services (RS) rate, and the Transmission Access Charge Balancing Account Adjustment (TACBAA) also set forth in its TO Tariff. PG&E states that the errata corrects
PG&E states that copies of this filing have been served upon the California Independent System Operator (ISO), Scheduling Coordinators registered with the ISO, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas &Electric Company, the California Public Utilities Commission and other parties to the official service lists in this docket and recent TO Tariff rate cases, FERC Docket Nos. ER01-1639-000, ER03-409-000 and ER04-109-000.
Take notice that on January 2, 2004, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), submitted for filing an executed Construction Service Agreement (CSA) among PJM and Borough of Chambersburg, and Monongahela Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company, and West Penn Power Company, all doing business as Allegheny Power. PJM requests a waiver of the Commission's 60-day notice requirement to permit a December 17, 2003, effective date for the CSA. PJM states that copies of this filing were served upon the parties to the agreements and the state regulatory commissions within the PJM region.
Take notice that on January 2, 2004, Illinois Power Company (IP) filed revisions to its open access transmission tariff (OATT) to comply with the directives in the Commission's Order issued in Docket Nos. EL03-212-000 and 001 on November 17, 2003, 105 FERC 61,216 (2003).
IP states that it has served copies of this filing on all of the parties listed in the official service list maintained in Docket No. EL03-212-000, which includes the Illinois Commerce Commission, and all of IP's OATT customers.
Take notice that on January 6, 2004, the Western Systems Power Pool, Inc. (WSPP) submitted a request to amend the WSPP Agreement to include Duke Energy Marketing America, LLC (DEMA) as a participant. The WSPP seeks an effective date of November 27, 2003.
WSPP states that copies of this filing will be served upon DEMA. WSPP further states that in addition, copies will be emailed to WSPP members who have supplied email addresses for the Contract Committee and Contacts lists. WSPP states that this filing also has been posted on the their home page (
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the commission's rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date, and, to the extent applicable, must be served on the applicant and on any other person designated on the official service list. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of adequacy.
In this notice, EPA is notifying the public that EPA has found that the 2007 motor vehicle emissions budgets in the June 17, 2003 Connecticut State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision are adequate for conformity purposes. The submittal included MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2007 for the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island ozone nonattainment area and the Greater Connecticut ozone nonattainment area. On March 2, 1999, the DC Circuit Court ruled that budgets in submitted state implementation plans cannot be used for conformity determinations until EPA has affirmatively found them adequate. As a result of our finding, the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island ozone nonattainment area and the Greater Connecticut ozone nonattainment area can use the MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emissions budgets from the submitted plan for future conformity determinations.
These budgets are effective February 4, 2004.
Donald O. Cooke, Environmental Scientist, Air Quality Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023, (617) 918-1668,
Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that we have already made. EPA New England sent a letter to Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on January 6, 2004 stating that the 2007 MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emissions budgets in the June 17, 2003 SIP are adequate. This finding will also be announced on EPA's conformity Web site:
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.
The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle emission budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and it also should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved.
We've described our process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in a May 14, 1999 memorandum entitled “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999 Conformity Court Decision.” Additional guidance on EPA's adequacy process was published in a June 30, 2003
The MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emission budgets for 2007 are as follows: 16.4 tons per summer day (tpsd) for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 29.7 tpsd for nitrogen oxides (NO
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671 q.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability and request for scientific views.
This notice informs the public about the availability of and requests scientific views on a revised draft human health criteria document for chloroform. The Agency derived the revised criteria according to the procedures and methods in
The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and publish and, from time to time, revise criteria for water accurately reflecting the latest scientific knowledge. When final, these criteria will provide EPA's recommendations to States and authorized Tribes as they establish their water quality standards as State or Tribal law or regulation. At this time the Agency is not making final recommendations. Rather the Agency is requesting scientific views on the draft revised criteria because the criteria reflect changes in several of the values used to derive them, including the Reference Dose (RfD), the Relative Source Contribution (RSC) and Bioaccumulation Factors.
All scientific information must be submitted to the Agency on or before March 22, 2004.
Scientific views may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand-delivery/courier. Follow detailed instructions as provided in section I.C. of the
Dr. Tala Henry, Health and Ecological Criteria Division (4304T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; (202) 566-1323;
Entities potentially interested in today's notice are those that produce, use, or regulate chloroform. Categories and entities interested in today's notice include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be interested in this notice. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be interested in this notice. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be interested.
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Section I.B.1.
It is important to note that EPA's policy is that scientific views, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless your views and information contain copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a scientific view containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the view that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed scientific view, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Scientific views submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Scientific views that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
You may submit scientific views electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your scientific views. Please ensure that your scientific views are submitted within the specified time period. Scientific views received after the close of the stated time period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late scientific views.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
You may find these suggestions helpful for preparing your scientific views:
1. Explain your scientific views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that support your scientific views.
4. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
5. Offer alternatives.
6. Make sure to submit your scientific views by the time period deadline identified.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
Recommended water quality criteria represent the concentrations of a chemical in water at or below which human health is protected from adverse effects of the chemical. Section 304(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to develop and publish, and, from time to time, revise criteria for water accurately reflecting the latest scientific knowledge. Water quality criteria developed under section 304(a) are based solely on data and scientific judgments. They do not consider economic impacts or the technological feasibility of meeting the criteria in ambient water. Section 304(a) criteria provide guidance to States and Tribes in adopting water quality standards. The criteria also provide a scientific basis for EPA to develop Federally promulgated water quality standards under section 303(c) of the CWA.
Chloroform (trichloromethane) is nonflammable and slightly soluble in water. Chloroform is a volatile organic liquid that has a number of industrial and chemical uses. It is manufactured and used as a solvent and as an intermediate in the production of refrigerants, plastics, and other solvents. Because of its volatility, chloroform has the potential to evaporate from water and escape from contaminated environmental media (
EPA originally published Human Health AWQC for chloroform in 1980 (45 FR 79318, October 1980). These criteria were updated by incorporating newer toxicity values from EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) data base and published in the 1992 National Toxics Rule (57 FR 60848). The criteria values promulgated in the National Toxics Rule are the same values included in EPA's most recent compilation of national recommended water quality criteria, published in 2002 (67 FR 79091). The chloroform criteria currently recommended by EPA are: 5.7 μg/L for consumption of water + organisms and 470 μg/L for consumption of organisms only. The 2002 compilation did not include updates to the chloroform criteria based on the 2000 Human Health Methodology. Rather, EPA indicated in the 2002 compilation that updates for chemicals undergoing major reassessments, including chloroform, would be published in the future. The draft revised criteria document announced in this notice is the result of that reassessment.
The draft revised criteria reflect the Agency's consideration of the recent advances in scientific information available since the 2002 criteria were recommend. We have revised the criteria by implementing EPA's
• Fish Consumption Rate
• Dose Response Parameter
• Relative Source Contribution (RSC)
• Bioaccumulation Factors
1.
2.
3.
4.
The draft revised criteria for chloroform are: 68 μg/L for consumption of water + organisms and 2,400 μg/L for consumption of organisms only.
Though the public is welcome to submit scientific views on any component of the chloroform ambient water quality criteria document, EPA is specifically interested in scientific views on the following scientific issues:
• The determination of Relative Source Contribution and the value as estimated.
• The data from which the bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) were derived and the values as estimated.
Water quality criteria published by EPA are the Agency's recommended water quality criteria until EPA revises or withdraws the criteria. EPA supports using the current section 304(a) criteria for those chemicals for which criteria are being updated and considers them to be scientifically sound until the Agency publishes final revised 304(a) criteria.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Commission grants the Requests for Review by Winston-Salem/Forsyth County School District, Winston-Salem, North Carolina and International Business Machines, Inc., and remands the Requests for Review to SLD for consideration.
The Commission's decisions on the Requests for Review addressed in this order were effective December 8, 2003.
Andy Firth, Attorney, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400, TTY (202) 418-0484.
This is a summary of the Commission's Order in CC Docket Nos. 96-45 and 97-21 released on December 8, 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.
1. In this Order, before the Commission are Requests for Review by Winston-Salem/Forsyth County School District, Winston-Salem, North Carolina (Winston-Salem), and International Business Machines, Inc. (IBM). This school and IBM seek review of decisions of the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company (Administrator) that denied Winston-Salem $16.7 million in discounts for internal connections from the universal service support mechanisms for schools and libraries for Funding Year 2002. For the reasons set forth below, we grant these Requests for Review, and remand to SLD for consideration in accordance with this Order.
2. The Commission also releases the
3. We conclude, based on the record before us that SLD erred in denying the discounts requested by Winston-Salem. The grounds upon which we found rule violations in the Ysleta case are not present here.
4. First, we cannot conclude that Winston-Salem violated our competitive bidding rules. Unlike the
5. Second, we cannot conclude that Winston-Salem failed to properly consider price when selecting its service provider because only one party responded to its posted FCC Form 470. Its decision to enter into a contract with the one bidder is no different than the thousands of other applicants who receive either no bids, or only one bid, in response to a FCC Form 470 posting. Our rules require applicants to seek competitive bids; they do not require an applicant to have competing bidders where none appear. While we find it unusual, given the size of Winston-Salem's proposed project, that no other entity submitted a bid, this alone, without more, cannot be the basis for denying Winston-Salem's request for review. We note, however, that this case demonstrates how an overly broad FCC Form 470 posting may well stifle competition among service providers. In the
6. Finally, we note that in its Request for Review, Winston-Salem describes in detail the process it employed to select a Systems Integrator, to demonstrate that Winston-Salem is committed to utilizing a fully competitive selection process for the award of its contracts. We find that Winston-Salem's
7. Therefore, we grant the above-captioned Requests for Review and remand the Winston-Salem application to SLD. In doing so, we emphasize that we make no determination as to whether the applicant is ultimately entitled to any funding, as SLD must scrutinize all applications for ineligible services and compliance with all program rules, including all prospective clarifications enunciated in the
8. Pursuant to § 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, that the above-captioned Requests for Review are granted to the extent provided herein and remanded to SLD for further processing in accordance with this Order.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than February 3, 2004.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 13, 2004.
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 February 13, 2004.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 13, 2004.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the following advisory committee meeting.
Should you require reasonable accommodation, please contact the CDC Office of Equal Employment Opportunity on (301) 458-4EEO (4336) as soon as possible.
A notice announcing the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2002 funds for cooperative agreements for the National Cancer Prevention and Control Program (NCPCP) was published in the
Page 19937, section G.4.a.(5)(f), second column, last paragraph, replace “Attachment B—Workplan Template” with “Attachment A—Workplan Template & Definitions”.
Page 19940, section H.3.a.(3), third column, replace “Attachment C” with “Attachment B”.
Page 19941, section H.4.a., third column, first full paragraph, replace “Attachment D” with “Attachment C”.
Page 19941, section H.4.a., third column, second full paragraph, replace “Attachment E” with “Attachment D”.
Page 19941, section H.4.a.(5)(a)[1], third column, delete “two business meetings” and place with “one business meeting”.
Page 19941, section H.4.a.(5)(a)[3], third column, delete “up to two regional training opportunities.” And replace with “two CDC-sponsored workshops/trainings/meetings (2-3 days).”
Page 19942, section H.4., first column, third paragraph after section H.4.a.(5)(a)[4], delete the following: ‘The applicant should submit a completed Screening and Diagnostic Worksheet (Attachment F— “Screening and Diagnostic Worksheet” in the appendices) which is used to estimate the amount of funding needed to reimburse providers for allowable clinical services provided to eligible women served in your program. Further information about the Screening and Diagnostic Worksheet is provided in the NBCCEDP Policies and Procedures Manual, Section IV, pages 21-25. An electronic version of the Screening and Diagnostic Worksheet, an EXCEL spreadsheet, may be obtained through the program technical assistance contact listed in Section L. “Where to Obtain Additional Information.’ ” Replace with “The applicant should submit a completed Clinical Costs Worksheet (Attachment E— “Clinical Costs Worksheet” in the appendices) which is used as a standardized tool to estimate clinical and other direct service costs for your program. An electronic version of the Clinical Costs Worksheet, an EXCEL spreadsheet, and a related MSWord document with definitions may be obtained through the program technical assistance contact listed in Section L. “Where to Obtain Additional Information.”
Page 19942, section H.4.a.(6)(a), first column, replace “Attachment G” with “Attachment F”.
Page 19942, second column, after section H.4.a.(6)(b), add section H.4.a.(6)(c) to read “Provide an itemized list of other non-Federal sources of funds, (appropriated, donated, and/or in-kind) by source, that are used to support NBCCEDP staffing and/or allowable direct services (
Page 19943, section H.5.d., third column, first partial sentence, delete the “.” And add “(See Attachment H—Workplan Templates A&B).”
Page 19949, section J.1.a.(4)(b), second column, amended in Amendment 2 to read, “An example that demonstrates the impact of the NBCCEDP, and updated list of the screening and diagnostic procedures paid for by the program, the amount paid and the maximum amount allowed by Medicare within the State. Also include an updated letter of assurance regarding Medicaid coverage for CBE, screening mammograms, Pap smears and pelvic exams.”, add the following, “NBCCEDP recipients are required to submit the NBCCEDP Minimum Data Elements (MDEs) to CDC semiannually on October 15 and April 15 and the System for Technical Assistance Reporting (STAR) data once annually on October 30 to CDC—OMB Control No. 0920-0571.”
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Rhonda Whalen, Chief, Laboratory Practice Standards Branch, Division of Laboratory Systems, Public Health Practice Program Office, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, Mailstop F-11, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3717; telephone (770) 488-8042; fax (770) 488-8279; or via e-mail at
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (301) 443-7978.
The Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) Act (42 U.S.C. 10801
Under the PAIMI Act, formula grant awards are made to protection and advocacy (P&A) systems designated by the governors of the 50 states and 6 territories, and the District of Columbia to ensure that the rights of individuals with severe mental illness and severe emotional disturbance are not violated. In October 2000, the PAIMI Act was amended to create a 57th P&A system—the American Indian Consortium in Shiprock, New Mexico. Whenever the annual PAIMI appropriation reaches $30 million or more, State P&A systems may serve eligible individuals with serious mental illness or severe emotional impairments, as defined under the Act, residing in the community, including their own homes. However, PAIMI eligible persons residing in public and private residential care or treatment facilities have priority for all P&A system services.
The PAIMI Act requires P & A systems to file an annual report on their activities and accomplishments and to provide information on such topics as: numbers of individuals served, types of complaints addressed, and the number of intervention strategies used to resolve the presenting issues. Under the Act, there is an Advisory Council which is also required to submit an annual report that assesses the effectiveness of the services provided to, and the activities conducted by, the P&A systems on behalf of PAIMI eligible individuals and their family members.
The PAIMI Annual Program Performance Report (PPR) will undergo minor changes consistent with current statutory and regulatory data requirements, specifically information on grievance procedures, issues and investigations related to incidents of seclusion, restraint, including serious injuries and deaths, and the Advisory Council assessment of State P&A system PAIMI Program activities. The revised report formats will be effective for the report due on January 1, 2005.
The annual burden estimate is as follows:
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of this notice to: SAMHSA Desk Officer, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503; due to potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, respondents are encouraged to submit comments by fax to: 202-395-6974.
Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement concerning an American Healthy Homes Survey in homes across the country 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: Gail N. Ward, Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room P3206, Washington, DC 20410.
John H. Miller, (202) 755-1758 ext. 106 (this is not a toll-free number), or
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection 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; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease characterized by episodes of airway inflammation and narrowing. It is generally accepted that asthma results from the interaction between genetic susceptibility and environmental exposures. Exposure to indoor allergy-producing substances (allergens) is believed to play an important role in the development and exacerbation of asthma. The HUD-NIEHS survey, above, found that most U.S. homes had, near the end of the last decade, detectable levels of dust mite allergen associated with allergic sensitization and asthma. New information is needed to characterize changes in the residential prevalence of allergens since the survey.
Similarly, such airborne chemicals as carbon monoxide, airborne particulate matter, and such chemicals on surfaces as arsenic and pesticides, and such unintentional injury factors as conditions associated with falls, fires and poisons, are known to have adverse health or safety effects, but national residential prevalence estimates are unavailable, limiting the ability of HUD and other agencies to develop data-driven control strategies.
This information will be used in revising policy and guidance to target the housing with the greatest needs for lead hazard evaluation and control.
Results from this survey will provide current information needed for regulatory and policy decisions and enables an assessment of progress in making the U.S. housing stock safe.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, 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: Mildred M. Hamman, Reports Liaison Officer, Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 4238, Washington, DC 20410-5000.
Mildred M. Hamman, (202) 708-0614, extension 4128. (This is not a toll-free number).
The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection 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; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
The Exigent Health and Safety Deficiency Correction and Remedy Certification templates are the set of documents on which the Department will collect information from Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) and multifamily property owners/agents about the correction and mitigation of exigent health and safety (EH&S) deficiencies that are identified in the property inspection.
The Department's Uniform Physical Condition Standards (UPCS) regulation (24 CFR part 5, subpart G) provides that HUD assisted and insured housing must be decent, safe, sanitary, and in good repair. Owners/agents and PHAs must maintain the housing in a manner that meets the prescribed physical condition standards in order to be considered decent, safe, sanitary, and in good repair. In addition, the UPCS regulation provides that all areas and components of the housing must be free of health and safety hazards.
This Notice also lists the following information:
The PHAs are to correct or mitigate EH&S deficiencies (
In accordance with these requirements, PHAs and multifamily property owners/agents enter the required data on the templates, certify to the data entered, and electronically submit the information to HUD. Requiring PHAs and multifamily property owners/agents to report correction and mitigation activities enables HUD to monitor regulatory requirements and conduct follow-up activities to assist in ensuring the residents are living in HUD housing that is decent, safe, sanitary and in good repair and is free of health and safety hazards.
2,061 PHAs; annual submission per PHA; average burden hours for PHA response is .32 hours; the total reporting burden is 648.65 hours.
6,771 multifamily property owners; annual submission per owner; average burden hours for owner response is .3 hours; the total reporting burden is 2,044.15 hours.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, 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: Mildred M. Hamman, Reports Liaison Officer, Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 4255, Washington, DC. 20410-5000.
Mildred M. Hamman, (202) 708-0614, extension 4128. (This is not a toll-free number).
The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will 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 through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
The housing choice voucher program forms are used by the Department to collect information from Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), and program participants as part of the Housing Choice Voucher Program process.
There are several forms used by the Department, each serve a different information collection purpose. The title, and purpose of each form is described in the section below.
This Notice also lists the following information:
Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The requested information requirements (how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used) for the voucher program consist of the following:
Estimate of Total Required Annual Contributions, Form HUD-562673 is used to summarize the financial estimates contained on Form HUD-52672, and upon approval by HUD, Form HUD-52673 is the PHA operating budget for the PHA fiscal year.
PHA Preparation of Information about the Tenant for the Owner, when the PHA is approving a new unit selected by the family, the PHA must advise the owner that the PHA has not screened the family and provide the name and address of previous landlords if such information is readily available. This information is not provided to HUD.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, 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: Mildred M. Hamman, Reports Liaison Officer, Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 4255, Washington, DC 20410-5000.
Mildred M. Hamman, (202) 708-0614, extension 4128. (This is not a toll-free number).
The Department will submit 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).
The Line of Credit Control System (LOCCS) is HUD computerized cash management and disbursement system developed to assist the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) in planning, accounting, and evaluating HUD disbursements within specific Public and Indian Housing (PIH) housing program areas. The Voice Response System (VRS) allows the grant recipient to requisition grant funds via a touch-tone telephone. The applicable payment voucher will be prepared by the grantee before calling
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection 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; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
This Notice also lists the following information:
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice of funding awards.
In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding decisions made by the Department in a competition for funding under the Super Notice of Funding Availability (SuperNOFA) for the Rural Housing and Economic Development Program. This announcement contains the names of the awardees and the amounts of the awards made available by HUD.
Jackie L. Williams, Ph.D., Director, Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development, Office of Community Planning and Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 7137, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-2290 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired persons may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339. For general information on this and other HUD programs, call Community Connections at 1-800-998-9999 or visit the HUD Web site at
The Rural Housing and Economic Development program was authorized by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 1999. The competition was announced in the SuperNOFA published April 25, 2003. Applications were rated and selected for funding on the basis of selection criteria contained in that notice.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this program is 14.250.
The Rural Housing and Economic Development Program is designed to build capacity at the State and local level for rural housing and economic development and to support innovative housing and economic development activities in rural areas. Eligible applicants are local rural non-profit organizations, community development corporations, federally recognized Indian tribes, and State housing finance agencies. The funds made available under this program were awarded competitively, through a selection process conducted by HUD.
Prior to the rating and ranking of this year's applications, Eastern Eight Community Development in Johnson City, Tennessee was awarded $134,000, Fort Belknap Indian Community in Harlem, Montana was awarded $66,782, and Haliwa Saponi Indian Tribe in Hollister, North Carolina was awarded $89,421 as a result of funding errors during the previous year's funding. For the Fiscal Year 2003 competition, a total of $24,590,272 was awarded to 87 projects nationwide.
In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the grantees and amounts of the awards in Appendix A to this document.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of document availability for review and comment.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“we”) announces the availability of the Draft Recovery Plan for Behren's Silverspot Butterfly (
Comments on the draft recovery plan must be received on or before March 22, 2004 to receive our consideration.
Copies of the recovery plan are available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the following location: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, California 95521. Requests for copies of the draft recovery plan and written comments and materials regarding the plan should be addressed to the Field Supervisor at the above address. Electronic comments on the draft recovery plan can be sent via e-mail to:
Jim Watkins, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at the above Arcata address (telephone: 707-822-7201).
Recovery of endangered or threatened animals and plants is a primary goal of our endangered species program and the Endangered Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531
The Act requires the development of recovery plans for listed species unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a particular species. Section 4(f) of the Act requires that public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment be provided during recovery plan development. We will consider all information presented during the public comment period prior to approval of each new or revised recovery plan. Substantive technical comments may result in changes to the plan. Substantive comments regarding recovery plan implementation may not necessarily result in changes to the recovery plan, but will be forwarded to appropriate Federal or other entities so that they can take these comments into account during the course of implementing recovery actions. Individual responses to comments will not be provided.
The Behren's silverspot butterfly occupies early successional coastal terrace prairie habitat that contains
This draft recovery plan includes conservation measures designed to ensure that a self-sustaining population of Behren's silverspot butterfly will continue to exist, distributed throughout its extant and historic range. Specific recovery actions focus on protection and management of suitable habitat with larval food plants. The draft recovery plan also addresses the need to re-establish multiple populations of Behren's silverspot butterfly within its historic range. The ultimate objective of this recovery plan is to delist Behren's silverspot butterfly through implementation of a variety of recovery
We solicit written comments on the draft recovery plan described. All comments received by the date specified above will be considered in developing a final recovery plan.
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (we, the Service) has received an application from Clem and Barbara Starck (Applicants) for an enhancement of survival permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA). The permit application includes a proposed Safe Harbor Agreement (Agreement) between the Applicants and the Service that allows for management and conservation of the endangered Fender's blue butterfly (
The proposed Agreement and ESA survival enhancement permit may be eligible for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). This is evaluated in an Environmental Action Statement, which is also available for public review.
Written comments must be received by close of business on February 19, 2004.
Comments should be addressed to Kemper McMaster, State Supervisor, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, Oregon 97266, facsimile number (503) 231-6195 (see
Richard Szlemp, Fish and Wildlife Service Biologist, at the above address or by calling (503) 231-6179.
Individuals wishing copies of the permit application, the Environmental Action Statement, or copies of the full text of the proposed Agreement should contact the office and personnel listed in the
The Service provides this notice pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA and pursuant to implementing regulations for NEPA (40 CFR 1506.6). All comments received on the permit application and proposed Agreement, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be released to the public. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. All submissions from organizations or companies, or from individuals representing organizations or companies, are available for public inspection in their entirety.
Fender's blue butterfly is one of about a dozen subspecies of Boisduval's blue butterfly (
Past conversion of land to agriculture, urban development, fire suppression, and other factors have reduced upland prairie to approximately 988 ac, which is approximately 0.01 percent of its former range. Of this remaining prairie habitat, Fender's blue butterfly occupies approximately 408 ac and Kincaid's lupine occupies about 370 ac. The threat of habitat loss in remnant prairies continues through habitat destruction or degradation due to agriculture, urban development, forestry, grazing, roadside maintenance, and commercial Christmas tree farming. Sites not threatened by habitat destruction are threatened by herbivory, competition by nonnative species, and plant succession. Over half of the sites occupied by Fender's blue butterfly and Kincaid's lupine are privately owned, necessitating conservation actions on non-Federal lands to recover the species.
The Applicants, in partnership with the Service through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, propose to enter into an agreement to restore approximately 20 ac of upland prairie oak savanna habitat (Agreement #13420-1-J134). The project area had been a hay field and horse pasture and was covered with a variety of hay grasses and weeds, including Himalayan blackberry and Queen Anne's lace. The project site consists of two fields, both of which have large Oregon white oaks growing along the edges. The site was determined to be suitable for introduction of Kincaid's lupine and may eventually support Fender's blue butterfly.
As described in the proposed Agreement, the Applicants and the Service would agree to carry out management activities that would restore 20 ac of oak savanna habitat for Kincaid's lupine and Fender's blue butterfly. The Applicants will maintain the habitat for a period of 15 years by controlling invasive plant species via bi-annual perimeter mowing, burning, or other means. In return for these voluntary conservation commitments, an ESA 10(a)(1)(A) permit, if approved, would extend assurances to the Applicants, including authorization to return the property to its original baseline condition at the end of the 15-year term of the Agreement.
The Service would be responsible for annual compliance monitoring related to implementation of the proposed Agreement and fulfillment of its provisions. The Institute for Applied Ecology, per the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program contract, will monitor effectiveness of the introduction and survivorship of Kincaid's lupine seeds and seedlings.
We will evaluate the permit application, the proposed Agreement, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act and applicable regulations. If the requirements are met, the Service will sign the proposed Agreement and issue an enhancement of survival permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act to the applicant for take of Fender's blue butterfly as a result of activities incidental to otherwise lawful activities of the project. Kincaid's lupine would be included on the permit in recognition of the conservation benefits provided to it under the Agreement as a result of restoration and recovery activities. The Service will not make a final decision without full consideration of all comments received during the comment period.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior and Indian Health Service, Health and Human Services.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service are submitting the information collection, titled “Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act Contracts” to the Office of Management and Budget for renewal. The information collection, #1076-0136, is used to process contracts, grants or cooperative agreements for award by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service as authorized by the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. The Act was amended and is set forth in 25 CFR part 900. This proposed information collection project was published in the
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 19, 2004.
You may submit comments on the information collection to the Desk Officer for Department of the Interior, by facsimile at (202) 395-6566 or you may send an e-mail to:
Please send copy of comments to Lena Mills, Office of Tribal Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., MS 320 SIB, Washington, DC 20240. You may telefax comments on this information collection to (202) 208-5113. You may also hand-deliver written comments or view comments at the same address.
You may request further information or obtain copies of the information collection request submission from Lena Mills, Office of Tribal Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., MS 320 SIB, Washington, DC 20240, or (202) 513-7612.
Representatives of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Health and Human Services and Tribes developed a joint rule, 25 CFR part 900, to implement section 107 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, as amended, Title I, Public Law 103-413, the Indian Self-Determination Contract Reform Act of 1994. Section 107(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Indian Self-Determination Contract Reform Act requires the joint rule to permit contracts and grants be awarded to Indian Tribes without the unnecessary burden or confusion associated with two sets of rules and information collection requirements when legislation treats this as a single program covering two separate agencies. The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service estimate that the base burden hours established for this Information Collection Request, OMB 1076-0136, will be reduced overall by approximately 20 percent. The reduction in the number of base burden hours established for information collection requirements of 25 CFR part 900 is a result of the three following factors:
(1) More Tribes are contracting under 25 CFR 900.8 which permits Tribes to contract several programs under a single contract;
(2) The number of self-governance Tribes has increased. Self-governance Tribes may combine all programs under a single self-governance compact;
(3) The majority of contracts awarded are for renewal, which take considerably less time to complete than new contracts and therefore substantially reduces the burden under subpart C.
The information requirements for this joint rule represent significant differences from other agencies in several respects. Both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service let contracts for multiple programs whereas other agencies usually award single grants to Tribes. Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, as amended, and the Indian Self-Determination Contract Reform Act of 1994, Tribes are entitled to contract and may renew contracts annually where other agencies provide grants on a discretionary/competitive basis.
The proposal and other supporting documentation identified in this information collection is used by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Health and Human Services to determine applicant eligibility, evaluate applicant capabilities, protect the service population, safeguard Federal funds and other resources, and permit the Federal agencies to administer and evaluate contract programs. Tribal governments or Tribal organizations provide the information by submitting Public Law 93-638 contract or grant proposals to the appropriate Federal agency. No third-party notification or public disclosure burden is associated with this collection.
Your comments should address: (a) The necessity of the information collection for the proper performance of the agencies, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agencies' estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c)
Please note that an agency may not sponsor nor request, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it has a valid OMB Control Number. It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of additional public scoping meeting and extension of comment period for scoping.
This notice announces that the Bureau of Indian Affairs is holding an additional public scoping meeting and extending the comment period for identifying potential issues and content for inclusion in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Proposed Ione Band of Miwok Indians' Trust Acquisition and Casino Project, Amador County, California. The Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS, published in the
The additional public scoping meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 4, 2004, from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. or until the last comment is received. The date by which written comments must arrive is extended to February 20, 2004.
The additional public scoping meeting will be held at the Amador County Fairgrounds, 18621 Sherwood and School Streets, Plymouth, California. You may mail or hand-carry written comments to Mr. Clay Gregory, Acting Regional Director, Pacific Region, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, California 95825.
William Allan, (916) 978-6043.
The Ione Band of Miwok Indians proposes that the Bureau of Indian Affairs take 208.06± acres of land into trust for the Band and that a casino, parking, hotel and other facilities supporting the casino be constructed on the trust acquisition property. The proposed project is located within the City of Plymouth, California. Additional details may be found in the November 7, 2003,
Areas of environmental concern identified to date for analysis in the EIS include land use, geology and soils, water resources, agricultural resources, biological resources, mineral resources, paleontological resources, cultural resources, traffic and transportation, air quality, noise, public health/environmental hazards, hazardous materials and waste/worker safety, public services and utilities, socio-economics, visual resources/aesthetics and environmental justice. Additional issues may be addressed based on comments received during the scoping process.
Comments, including names and addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the mailing address shown in the
This notice is published in accordance with section 1503.1 of the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508) implementing the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Vale District.
Notice of meeting.
The National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center Advisory Board will meet in a conference room at the Best Western Sunridge Inn (541-523-6444), One Sunridge Way in Baker City, OR from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m., (Pacific time P.t.) on Thursday, March 4, 2004.
The meeting topics may include: reports from the Standing Committees (Economic Development, Visitation, Education and Community Liaison), a roundtable to allow members to introduce new issues to the board, and other matters as may reasonably come before the Board. The entire meeting is open to the public. For a copy of the information to be distributed to the Board members, please submit a written request to the Vale District Office 10 days prior to the meeting. Public comment is scheduled for 10 a.m. to 10:15 a.m., Pacific time (P.t.).
Additional information concerning the NHOTIC Advisory Board may be obtained from Peggy Diegan, Management Assistant/Webmaster, Vale District Office, 100 Oregon Street, Vale, OR 97918 (541) 473-3144, or e-mail
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Announcement of meeting.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces that the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board will conduct a meeting on matters pertaining to management and protection of wild, free-roaming horses and burros on the Nation's public lands.
The Advisory Board will meet Monday, February 9, 2004, from 8 a.m., to 5 p.m., local time, and on Tuesday, February 10, 2004, from 8 a.m., to 12 p.m., local time.
The Advisory Board will meet at the Crowne Plaza, 2532 W. Peoria, Phoenix, Arizona 85029, (602) 943-2341.
Written comments pertaining to the Advisory Board meeting should be sent to: Bureau of Land Management, National Wild Horse and Burro Program, WO 260, Attention: Ramona Delorme, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Reno, Nevada 89502-7147. Submit written comments pertaining to the Advisory Board meeting no later than close of business February 4, 2004. See
Janet Neal, Wild Horse and Burro Public Outreach Specialist, 775-861-6583. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may reach
Under the authority of 43 CFR part 1784, the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board advises the Secretary of the Interior, the Director of the BLM, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Chief, Forest Service, on matters pertaining to management and protection of wild, free-roaming horses and burros on the Nation's public lands. The tentative agenda for the meeting is:
The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. An individual with a disability needing an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting, such as interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in an alternate format, must notify the person listed under
The Federal advisory committee management regulations [41 CFR 101-6.1015(b),] require BLM to publish in the
Members of the public may make oral statements to the Advisory Board on February 9, 2004, at the appropriate point in the agenda. This opportunity is anticipated to occur at 4 p.m., local time. Persons wishing to make statements should register with the BLM by noon on February 9, 2004, at the meeting location. Depending on the number of speakers, the Advisory Board may limit the length of presentations. At previous meetings, presentations have been limited to three minutes in length. Speakers should address the specific wild horse and burro-related topics listed on the agenda. Speakers must submit a written copy of their statement to the address listed in the
Participation in the Advisory Board Meeting is not a prerequisite for submission of written comments. The BLM invites written comments from all interested parties. Your written comments should be specific and explain the reason for any recommendation. The BLM appreciates any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on management and protection of wild horses and burros are those that are either supported by quantitative information or studies or those that include citations to and analysis of applicable laws and regulations. Except for comments provided in electronic format, speakers should submit two copies of their written comments where feasible. The BLM will not necessarily consider comments received after the time indicated under the
In the event there is a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for a copy of your comments, the BLM will make them available in their entirety, including your name and address. However, if you do not want the BLM to release your name and address in response to a FOIA request, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. The BLM will honor your request to the extent allowed by law. The BLM will release all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, in their entirety, including names and addresses.
Speakers may transmit comments electronically via the Internet to:
Pursuant to the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease COC64903 for lands in Moffat County, Colorado, was timely filed and were accompanied by all the required rentals accruing from the date of termination. The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at the rate of $10.00 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year and 16
The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $166 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of intent to prepare a draft environmental impact statement and announcement of a public scoping meeting.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission (NMISC) intend to prepare a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on the execution of a long-term contract, based upon the 1920 Sale of Water for Miscellaneous Purposes Act (long-term miscellaneous purposes contract) with the Carlsbad Irrigation District (CID), New Mexico, and the subsequent conversion and delivery of the full amount of irrigation water addressed in the contract and any related contracts (hereinafter collectively referred to as a single contract). Reclamation is the lead Federal agency and the NMISC will serve as a joint lead agency for NEPA compliance for the proposed Federal action.
To receive input from interested organizations and individuals, a public scoping meeting will be held on February 12, 2004, in Carlsbad, New Mexico. Scoping is an early and public process for determining the issues to be addressed and identifying any significant issues related to the proposed Federal action. The scoping period will be open from January 20, 2004 to March 15, 2004. The public scoping meeting will be held at the following time and location:
• Thursday, February 12, 2004—7 to 9 p.m., Best Western Stevens Inn, Room No. 4, 1829 South Canal Street, Carlsbad, New Mexico.
Reclamation also invites written comments during the scoping period. Written comments regarding the scope and content of the draft EIS may be sent directly to Marsha Carra, Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque Area Office, 555 Broadway NE., Suite 100, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102; telephone (505) 462-3602; facsimile (505) 462-3797; e-mail:
Those not desiring to submit comments or suggestions at this time, but who would like to receive a copy of the draft EIS, should contact Marsha Carra. When the draft EIS is complete, its availability will be announced in the
Marsha Carra, Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque Area Office, 555 Broadway NE., Suite 100, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102; e-mail:
The purpose of Reclamation's proposed Federal action is to allow the NMISC to use Carlsbad Project water (Project water) allotted to land located inside the boundaries of the CID that NMISC owns or leases from other members of the CID, or other Project water, for release from facilities serving the Carlsbad Project. The underlying need for Reclamation's action is to help the NMISC comply with the Pecos River Compact and the United States Supreme Court Amended Decree in
The State of New Mexico
For several years Reclamation and the NMISC have worked together to address Pecos River water issues. Recently, the two agencies developed an approach for the environmental review of proposed Pecos River Basin activities that involves two concurrent EIS's: the Miscellaneous Purposes Contract EIS (the subject of this Notice of Intent) and the Carlsbad Project Water Operations and Water Supply Conservation EIS. The latter EIS is being developed to address Reclamation's Carlsbad Project water operations and water acquisition program. The Miscellaneous Purposes Contract EIS will address the effects of entering into a long-term miscellaneous purposes contract and the subsequent conversion and delivery of the full amount of irrigation water addressed in the miscellaneous purposes contract. Reclamation and the NMISC plan to coordinate the environmental analyses for both EIS processes.
The Carlsbad Project is a Federal Reclamation project authorized to irrigate 25,055 acres. Reclamation stores and delivers Carlsbad Project water for the benefit of the CID. Carlsbad Project facilities on the Pecos River include Santa Rosa Dam (owned and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), Sumner Dam, Brantley Dam, and Avalon Dam. The NMISC plans to purchase land, and water rights appurtenant thereto, within the boundaries of the CID.
On February 28, 2003, Reclamation published a notice in the
The draft EIS on the execution of a long-term miscellaneous purposes contract, and the subsequent conversion and delivery of the full amount of irrigation water addressed in the long-term miscellaneous purpose contract, will disclose the effects of the NMISC's use of this water and identify options to mitigate for any adverse impacts. Any proposed mitigation will comply with State, Federal, and other applicable laws and regulations. During the EIS process, opportunities to provide additional environmental, recreational, and social benefits may be identified and incorporated into the EIS.
The alternatives to be analyzed in the draft Miscellaneous Purposes Contract EIS will include the execution of a long-term miscellaneous purposes contract (Proposed Action Alternative), any other alternatives identified that fulfill the purpose and need, and a No Action Alternative. The draft EIS will assess the potential effects that the alternatives may have on Indian trust assets as well as any potential disproportionate effects on minority or low-income communities (environmental justice). The draft EIS will also evaluate the effects of the alternatives on the State of New Mexico's ability to meet annual state line delivery obligations associated with the Pecos River Compact and Amended Decree.
It is Reclamation's practice to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from public disclosure, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public disclosure in their entirety.
International Trade Commission.
In accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Commission has submitted a request for emergency processing for review and clearance of questionnaires to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission has requested OMB approval of this submission by COB February 13, 2004.
December 19, 2003.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8) Information obtained from the forms that qualifies as confidential business information will be so treated by the Commission and not disclosed in a manner that would reveal the individual operations of a firm.
Copies of the forms and supporting documents may be obtained from Jackie W. Jones (202-205-3466;
Hearing impaired individuals may obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TTD terminal on 202-205-1810. General information about the Commission may be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the initial determination (“ID”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) on November 26, 2003, granting complainant Auto Meter Products, Inc.'s motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add six firms as respondents in the above-captioned investigation. These firms are: Modern Work, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; Dynamik Exhaust Industry Co., Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan; LPL Trans Trade Co. of Taipei, Taiwan; Transglobal of Greenville, South Carolina; GSN Automotive, Inc. of Yung Kang City, Taiwan; and Equus, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan.
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3115. Copies of the ALJ's ID and all other nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
The Commission issued a notice of investigation dated June 16, 2003, naming Auto Meter Products, Inc. (“Auto Meter”) of Sycamore, Illinois, as the complainant and several companies as respondents. On June 20, 2003, the notice of investigation was published in the
On October 2, 2003, Auto Meter filed a motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation, and protective order to include six additional respondents. On October 14, 2003, American Products Company, Inc. (“APC”), Equus Products, Inc. (“Equus Products”) and GR Motorsports, Inc. D/b/a/ Matrix GR Motorsports (“GR”), three of the current respondents, filed their opposition to Auto Meter's motion. On October 23, 2003, Auto Meter filed a motion for leave to reply to the opposition filed by APC, Equus Products, and GR, which was granted by the ALJ. On October 29, 2003, the Commission investigative attorneys filed a response in support of Auto Meter's motion.
On December 15, 2003, the ALJ issued an initial determination (Order No. 12) granting Auto Meter's motion. No party petitioned for review of the ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in § 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42).
By order of the Commission.
National Science Foundation.
Notice.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to request renewed clearance of this collection. In accordance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting OMB clearance of this collection for no longer than 3 years.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
Written comments should be received by March 22, 2004, to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Written comments regarding the information collection and requests for copies of the proposed information collection request should be addressed to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm. 295, Arlington, VA 22230, or by e-mail to
Suzanne Plimpton on (703) 292-7556 or send e-mail to
“To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense. * * *”
The Act authorized and directed NSF to initiate and support:
• Basic scientific research and research fundamental to the engineering process;
• Programs to strengthen scientific and engineering research potential;
• Science and engineering education programs at all levels and in all the various fields of science and engineering;
• Programs that provide a source of information for policy formulation; and
• Other activities to promote these ends.
Over the years, NSF's statutory authority has been modified in a number of significant ways. In 1968, authority to support applied research was added to the Organic Act. In 1980, The Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act gave NSF standing authority to support activities to improve the participation of women and minorities in science and engineering.
Another major change occurred in 1986, when engineering was accorded equal status with science in the Organic Act. NSF has always dedicated itself to providing the leadership and vision needed to keep the words and ideas embedded in its mission statement fresh and up-to-date. Even in today's rapidly changing environment, NSF's core purpose resonates clearly in everything it does: Promoting achievement and progress in science and engineering and enhancing the potential for research and education to contribute to the Nation. While NSF's vision of the future and the mechanisms it uses to carry out its charges have evolved significantly over the last four decades, its ultimate mission remains the same.
The Foundation has a continuing commitment to monitor the operations of its information collection to identify and address excessive reporting burdens as well as to identify any real or apparent inequities based on gender, race, ethnicity, or disability of the proposed principal investigator(s)/project director(s) or the co-principal investigator(s)/co-project director(s).
National Science Foundation, National Science Board, Committee on Programs and Plans.
January 23, 2004 3:30 p.m. “ 4:30 p.m. Open Session Teleconference.
The National Science Foundation, Stafford One Building, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 130, Arlington, VA 22230.
This meeting will be open to the public.
Discussion of the report by the National Academies on “Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects supported by the National Science Foundation.”
Michael P. Crosby, Executive Officer, NSB, (703) 292-7000,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of withdrawal; correction.
This document corrects a notice appearing in the
Sean Peters, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone (301) 415-1842, e-mail:
On page 70320, in the first column, in the first complete paragraph, first line, it is corrected to read from “Duke Energy Corporation” to “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.”
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering the issuance of an order under 10 CFR 50.80 approving the transfer of Facility Operating License No. DPR-43 for the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (KNPP) currently owned by Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC) and Wisconsin Power and Light Company (WPL), who hold 59 percent and 41 percent ownership respectively, and Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC) as the licensed operator of KNPP. The transfer would be to Dominion Energy Kewaunee. The Commission is also considering amending the license for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer.
According to an application for approval filed by WPSC, WPL, and NMC, Dominion Energy Kewaunee would assume title to the facility following approval of the proposed license transfer, and would be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and eventual decommissioning of KNPP. No physical changes to the Kewaunee facility or operational changes are being proposed in the application.
The proposed amendment would replace references to WPSC, WPL, and NMC in the license with references to Dominion Energy Kewaunee to reflect the proposed transfer. The proposed amendment would also change the name of the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant to the Kewaunee Power Station.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application for the transfer of a license, if the Commission determines that the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto.
Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization facility which does no more than conform the license to reflect the transfer action involves no significant hazards consideration. No contrary determination has been made with respect to this specific license amendment application. In light of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no public comments with respect to significant hazards considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene, and written comments with regard to the license transfer application, are discussed below.
By February 9, 2004, any person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action on the application may request a hearing and, if not the applicant, may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in Subpart M, “Public Notification, Availability of Documents and Records, Hearing Requests and Procedures for Hearings on License Transfer Applications,” of 10 CFR Part 2. In particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306, and should address the considerations contained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a). Untimely requests and petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.1308(b), unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In addition, an untimely request or petition should address the factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR 2.1308(b)(1)-(2).
Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be served upon Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources, Inc. Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT 06385, phone number: 860-444-5316, fax: 860-444-4278, e-mail:
The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the
As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to intervene, by February 19, 2004, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and should cite the publication date and page number of this
For further details with respect to this action, see the application dated December 19, 2003, available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to Public Law 97-415, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. Public Law 97-415 revised section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), to require the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, under a new provision of section 189 of the Act. This provision grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from December 24, 2003, through January 8, 2004. The last biweekly notice was published on January 6, 2003 (69 FR 691).
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received before action is taken. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this
By February 19, 2004, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the
Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the above date. Because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that petitions for leave to intervene and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for a hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The probability (frequency of occurrence) of a design basis accident (DBA) occurring is not affected by the operating range expansion, because the plant continues to comply with the regulatory and design basis criteria established for plant equipment. The MELLLA+ core operating range expansion does not require significant plant hardware modifications. The core operating range expansion involves changes to the operating power-to-flow map and a small number of setpoints and alarms. Because there is no change in the operating pressure, power, steam flow rate, or feedwater flow rate, there are no significant effects on the plant hardware outside of the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS). The MELLLA+ operating range expansion does not cause additional requirements to be imposed on any of the safety, balance-of-plant, electrical, or auxiliary systems. No changes to the power generation and electrical distribution systems are required due to the introduction of MELLLA+. An evaluation of the probabilistic safety assessment concludes that the calculated increase in core damage frequencies due to the MELLLA+ operating range expansion are very small. Scram setpoints (equipment settings that initiate automatic plant shutdowns) are established such that there is no significant increase in scram frequency due to the MELLLA+ operating range expansion. No new challenges to safety-related equipment result from the MELLLA+ operating range
The proposed changes specify limiting conditions for operation, required actions and surveillance requirements for the OPRM system, and allows operation in regions of the power-to-flow map currently restricted by the requirements of the Interim Corrective Actions (ICAs) and certain limiting conditions of operation of TS Section 3.4.1. The restrictions of the ICAs and TS Section 3.4.1 were imposed to ensure adequate capability to detect and suppress conditions consistent with the onset of thermal-hydraulic oscillations that may develop into a thermal-hydraulic instability event. A thermal-hydraulic instability event has the potential to challenge the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) safety limit. The OPRM system can automatically detect and suppress conditions necessary for thermal-hydraulic instability. The Backup Stability Protection (BSP), in lieu of the ICAs, will provide adequate protection should the OPRM equipment become temporarily inoperable. With the activation of the OPRM system, the restrictions of the ICAs and TS Section 3.4.1 will no longer be required.
The probability of a thermal-hydraulic instability event is impacted by power to flow conditions such that only during operation inside specific regions of the power-to-flow map, in combination with power shape and inlet enthalpy conditions, can the occurrence of an instability event be postulated to occur. Operation in these regions may increase the probability that operation with conditions necessary for a thermal-hydraulic instability can occur.
When the OPRM is operable, the OPRM can automatically detect the imminent onset of power oscillations and generate a trip signal. Actuation of a Reactor Protection System (RPS) trip will suppress conditions necessary for thermal-hydraulic instability and decrease the probability of a thermal-hydraulic instability event. In the event the trip capability of the OPRM is not maintained, the proposed changes limit the period of time before an alternate method to detect and suppress thermal-hydraulic oscillations is required. Since the duration of this period of time is limited, the increase in the probability of a thermal-hydraulic instability event is not significant. Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The DSS-CD solution is designed to identify power oscillations upon inception and initiate control rod insertion (
The spectrum of hypothetical accidents and transients has been investigated, and are shown to meet the plant's currently licensed regulatory criteria. In the area of core design, for example, the fuel operating limits such as Maximum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate (MAPLHGR) and SLMCPR continue to be met. The fuel reload analyses will show plant transients meet the criteria accepted by the NRC as specified in NEDO-24011, “GESTAR II,” (Reference 12). Challenges to fuel are evaluated, and shown to still meet the criteria of 10 CFR 50.46, “Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Light-Water Nuclear Power Reactors.”, 10 CFR 50 Appendix K, “ECCS Evaluation Models,” and Regulatory Guide 1.70, “Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants,” Section 6.3. Challenges to the containment have been evaluated, and the containment and its associated cooling systems meet Criterion 38, “Containment heat removal.”, and Criterion 50, “Containment design basis.”, of the general design criteria. Radiological release events have been evaluated, and are shown to be below the regulatory limits of 10 CFR 100, “Reactor Site Criteria”. Operation in the MELLLA+ region does not result in an increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Operation within the MELLLA+ region has been evaluated to ensure that the CPS response to accidents and transients remains within acceptable criteria. Thus, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
An unmitigated thermal-hydraulic instability event is postulated to cause a violation of the MCPR safety limit. The proposed changes ensure mitigation of thermal-hydraulic instability events prior to challenging the MCPR safety limit if initiated from anticipated conditions by detection of the onset of oscillations and actuation of an RPS trip signal when the OPRM system is operable. The OPRM also provides the capability of an RPS trip being generated for thermal-hydraulic instability events initiated from unanticipated but postulated conditions. These mitigative capabilities of the OPRM system would become available as a result of the proposed changes and have the potential to reduce the consequences of unanticipated and postulated thermal-hydraulic instability events.
As stated above, the DSS-CD solution meets the requirements of Criterion 10 and Criterion 12 of the GDC by automatically detecting and suppressing design basis thermal-hydraulic oscillations prior to exceeding the fuel SLMCPR. Proper operation of the DSS-CD system does not affect any fission product barrier or Engineered Safety Feature. Thus, the proposed change cannot change the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Equipment that could be affected by MELLLA+ has been evaluated and no new operating mode, safety related equipment lineup, accident scenario, or equipment failure mode was identified. The full spectrum of accident considerations, defined in the CPS Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR), has been evaluated, and no new or different kind of accident has been identified. The MELLLA+ operating range expansion uses existing technology and NRC approved safety analysis methodology, and applies them within the capabilities of already existing plant equipment in accordance with presently existing regulatory and industry criteria. The MELLLA+ operating range expansion will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes specify limiting conditions for operations, required actions and surveillance requirements of the OPRM system and allows operation in regions of the power-to-flow map currently restricted by the requirements of the ICAs and TS Section 3.4.1. The OPRM system uses input signals shared with the Average Range Power Monitor (APRM) system and rod block functions to monitor core conditions and generate an RPS trip when required. Quality requirements for software design, testing, implementation and module self-testing of the OPRM system provide assurance that no new equipment malfunctions due to software errors are created. The design of the OPRM system also ensures that neither operation nor malfunction of the OPRM system will adversely impact the operation of the other systems and no accident or equipment malfunction of these other systems could cause the OPRM system to malfunction or cause a different kind of accident. No new failure modes of either the new OPRM equipment or of the existing APRM equipment have been introduced. Therefore, operation with the OPRM system does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The DSS-CD solution operates within the existing Option III OPRM hardware. Implementation of the DSS-CD will require a software/hardware change to the existing Option III system. No new operating mode, safety-related equipment lineup, accident scenario, system interaction, or equipment failure mode was identified. Therefore, the DSS-CD solution will not adversely affect plant equipment. Because there are no significant hardware changes, there is no
As such the proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The calculated loads on all affected structures, systems and components have been shown to remain within design allowables for all design basis event categories. No NRC acceptance criteria are exceeded. The margins of safety currently included in the design of the plant are not affected by the MELLLA+ operating range expansion. Because the plant configuration and response to transients and hypothetical accidents do not result in exceeding the presently approved NRC acceptance limits, operation in the MELLLA+ region does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The OPRM system monitors small groups of LPRM signals for indication of local variations of core power consistent with thermal-hydraulic oscillations and generates an RPS trip when conditions consistent with the onset of oscillations are detected. An unmitigated thermal-hydraulic instability event has the potential to result in a challenge to the MCPR safety limit. The OPRM system provides the capability to automatically detect and suppress conditions which might result in a thermal-hydraulic instability event and thereby maintains the margin of safety by providing automatic protection for the MCPR safety limit while reducing the burden on the control room operators significantly. The BSP, in lieu of the ICAs, will provide adequate protection should the OPRM equipment become temporarily inoperable. Operation with the OPRM system does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The DSS-CD solution is designed to identify the power oscillations upon inception and initiate control rod insertion to terminate (
Therefore, operation of CPS in accordance with the proposed changes will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The first standard requires that operation of the unit in accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes will be made in a manner such that the current requirements are maintained for the core spray system. The source of core spray water was not considered as a precursor of any previously analyzed and evaluated accident. No hardware design change is involved with the proposed amendment. Thus, the proposed amendment would create no adverse effect on the functional performance of any plant structure, system, or component (SSC). All SSCs will continue to perform their design functions with no decrease in their capabilities to mitigate the previously analyzed consequences of postulated accidents. Accordingly, the revised specifications will lead to no increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated, and no increase of the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The second standard requires that operation of the unit in accordance with the proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed amendment is not the result of a hardware design change, nor does it lead to the need for a hardware design change. There is no change in the methods the unit is operated. As a result, all SSCs will continue to perform as previously analyzed by the licensee, and previously evaluated and accepted by the NRC staff. Therefore, the proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The third standard requires that operation of the unit in accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Since the licensee did not propose to exceed or alter a design basis or safety limit, and did not propose to operate any component in a less conservative manner, the proposed amendment will not affect in any way the performance characteristics and intended functions of any SSC. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the NRC staff's analysis, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
This change was proposed by the industry's Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) and is designated TSTF-359. The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the
The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS. Being in a TS condition and the associated required actions is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The consequences of an accident while relying on required actions as allowed by proposed LCO 3.0.4, are no different than the consequences of an accident while entering and relying on the required actions while starting in a condition of applicability of the TS. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). Entering into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS, will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS. The TS allow operation of the plant without the full complement of equipment through the conditions for not meeting the TS LCO. The risk associated with this allowance is managed by the imposition of required actions that must be performed within the prescribed completion times. The net effect of being in a TS condition on the margin of safety is not considered significant. The proposed change does not alter the required actions or completion times of the TS. The proposed change allows TS conditions to be entered, and the associated required actions and completion times to be used in new circumstances. This use is predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the management of plant risk. The change also eliminates current allowances for utilizing required actions and completion times in similar circumstances, without assessing and managing risk. The net change to the margin of safety is insignificant. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change will increase the maximum enrichment limit of the fuel assemblies that can be stored in the Unit 2 spent fuel pool (SFP) by taking credit for soluble boron, burnup and configuration control in maintaining acceptable margins of subcriticality. The proposed change will modify Technical Specification 4.3.1 “Criticality,” add Technical Specification 3.7.16, “Spent Fuel Pool Boron Concentration” and add Technical Specification 3.7.17 “Spent Fuel Pool Storage.” The postulated accidents for the SFP are basically four types; (1) dropped fuel assembly on top of the storage rack, (2) a misloading accident, (3) an abnormal location of a fuel assembly, and (4) loss-of-normal cooling to the SFP.
There is no increase in the probability of a fuel assembly drop accident in the SFP when considering the higher enriched fuel or the presence of soluble boron in the SFP water. Dropping a fuel assembly on top of the SFP storage racks is not credible at Calvert Cliffs due to the design of the spent fuel handling machine and the height of the SFP storage racks. The handling of fuel assemblies has always been performed in borated water and will not change as a result of crediting soluble boron in the SFP criticality analysis. The proposed change does not change the general design or characteristics of the fuel assemblies. Therefore, the proposed change does not increase the probability of a fuel assembly drop accident.
There is no increase in the probability of the accidental misloading of irradiated fuel assemblies into the SFP storage racks when considering the higher enriched fuel or the presence of soluble boron in the SFP water for criticality control. Fuel assembly placement will continue to be controlled pursuant to approved fuel handling procedures.
Due to the design of the SFP storage racks, an abnormal placement of a fuel assembly into the SFP storage racks is not possible. Also, the design of the SFP prevents an inadvertent placement of a fuel assembly between the outer most storage cell and the pool wall. The proposed change does not make any change to the design of SFP. Therefore, there is no increase in the probability of abnormal placement of a fuel assembly into the SFP storage racks.
The proposed change will not result in any changes to the SFP cooling system, and the fuel assembly design and characteristics are not changed by an increase in fuel enrichment. Therefore, there is no increase in the probability of a loss of SFP cooling. Also, since a high concentration of soluble boron has always been maintained in the SFP water, there is no increase in the probability of the loss of normal cooling to the SFP water considering the presence of soluble boron in the pool water for criticality control.
There is no increase in the consequences of an accidental drop, accidental misloading, or abnormal placement of a maximum enriched fuel assembly into the SFP storage racks, because the criticality analysis demonstrates that the pool will remain subcritical following either event. The Technical Specification limit for SFP boron concentration will ensure that an adequate SFP boron concentration will be maintained.
There is no increase in the consequences of a loss-of-normal SFP cooling because the Technical Specification boron concentration provides significant negative reactivity. Loss of the SFP water via boiling will not result in a loss of soluble boron, since the soluble boron is not volatile. Therefore, loss of SFP cooling system, without makeup flow, is not a mechanism for boron dilution. Even in the unlikely event that soluble boron in the SFP is completely diluted via unborated makeup flow, a pool completely filled with maximum enriched unburned assemblies will remain subcritical by a design margin that meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50.68.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change will increase the maximum enrichment limit of the fuel assemblies that can be stored in the Unit 2 SFP by taking credit for soluble boron, burnup and configuration control in maintaining acceptable margins of subcriticality. Increasing the maximum enrichment limit does not create a new type of criticality accident.
Soluble boron has been maintained in the SFP water and is currently required by procedures. Therefore, crediting soluble boron in the SFP criticality analysis will have no effect on normal pool operation and maintenance. Crediting soluble boron will only result in increased sampling to verify the boron concentration in accordance with the proposed Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement. This increased sampling will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
A dilution of the SFP soluble boron has always been a possibility. However, the boron dilution event previously had no consequences, since boron was not previously credited in the accident analysis. The initiating events that were considered for having the potential to cause dilution of the boron in the SFP to a level below that credited in the criticality analyses fall into three categories: dilution by flooding, dilution by loss-of-coolant induced makeup, and dilution by loss-of-cooling system induced makeup. The SFP dilution analysis demonstrates that a dilution event that could increase k-effective in the SFP to greater than 0.95 is not a credible event. It is not credible that dilution could occur for the required length of time without operator notice, since this event would activate the high level alarm and initiate Auxiliary Building flooding. In addition, in excess of 1,043,000 gallons of unborated water must be added to the SFP to reach the minimum soluble boron concentration. This is more water volume than is contained in both pretreated water storage tanks and also more water volume than is contained in the demineralized water storage tank and both condensate storage tanks combined. Even in the unlikely event that soluble boron in the SFP is completely diluted, the SFP will remain subcritical by a design margin that meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50.68.
Burned assemblies have been stored in the SFP for many cycles. Therefore, crediting burnup in the SFP criticality analysis will have no effect on normal pool operation and maintenance. Fuel assembly placement, although more complex, will continue to be controlled pursuant to approved fuel handling procedures and in accordance with Technical Specification spent fuel rack storage configuration limitations.
The proposed change will not result in any other change in the plant configuration or equipment design. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The Technical Specification changes proposed by this license amendment request will provide an adequate safety margin to ensure that the stored fuel assembly array of maximum enriched fuel will always remain subcritical. Those limits are based on a plant specific criticality analysis performed for the Calvert Cliffs Unit 2 SFP, that include technically supported margins.
Soluble boron is used to provide subcritical margin such that the SFP k-effective is maintained less than or equal to 0.95. Since k-effective is less than or equal to 0.95, the current margin of safety is maintained. In addition, while the criticality analysis utilized credit for soluble boron, the fuel in the SFP rack will remain subcritical with no soluble boron with a 95 percent probability at a 95 percent confidence level as required by 10 CFR 50.68. This substantial reduction in the SFP soluble boron concentration was evaluated and shown not to be credible.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated:
No. The proposed changes revise the minimum PZR [pressurizer] heater capacity required and capable of being powered from an emergency power supply source. UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] do not take credit for PZR heater operation; however, an implicit initial condition assumption of the safety analyses is that RCS [Reactor Coolant System] is operating at normal pressure. Assurance of this assumption is enhanced due to these proposed changes. Consequently, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated:
No. These changes correct a non-conservative value from the TS [technical specification] and are necessary to assure RCS pressure control and adequate natural circulation cooling. The available heater capacity being powered from an emergency power supply is approximately 1000 kW for the most restrictive unit which exceeds the proposed 400 kW minimum capacity required by TS. The proposed changes help ensure that the RCS is operating at normal pressure which is an implicit initial assumption used in several UFSAR described safety analyses. Consequently, these changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety:
No. The proposed change does not adversely affect any plant safety limits, set points, or design parameters. The change also does not adversely affect the fuel, fuel cladding, RCS, or containment integrity. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
1. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in accordance with the proposed amendment, will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The basis of the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) is to ensure no mechanis0tic fuel damage is calculated to occur if the limit is not violated. The new SLMCPR values preserve the existing margin to transition boiling and probability of fuel damage is not increased. The derivation of the revised SLMCPR for Vermont Yankee for incorporation into the Technical Specifications, and its use to determine plant and cycle-specific thermal limits, have been performed using NRC [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission] approved methods. These plant-specific calculations are performed each operating cycle and if necessary, will require future changes to these values based upon revised core designs. The revised SLMCPR values do not change the method of operating the plant and have no effect on the probability of an accident initiating event or transient.
Based on the above, Vermont Yankee has concluded that the proposed change will not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in accordance with the proposed amendment, will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes result only from a specific analysis for the Vermont Yankee core reload design. These changes do not involve any new or different methods for operating the facility. No new initiating events or transients result from these changes.
Based on the above, Vermont Yankee has concluded that the proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those previously evaluated.
3. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in accordance with the proposed amendment, will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The new SLMCPR is calculated using NRC approved methods with plant and cycle specific parameters for the current core design. The SLMCPR value remains high enough to ensure that greater than 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core will avoid transition boiling if the limit is not violated, thereby preserving the fuel cladding integrity. The operating MCPR limit is set appropriately above the safety limit value to ensure adequate margin when the cycle specific transients are evaluated. Accordingly, the margin of safety is maintained with the revised values.
As a result, Vermont Yankee has determined that the proposed change will not result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the
The revised 10 CFR 50.44 no longer defines a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) hydrogen release, and eliminates requirements for hydrogen control systems to mitigate such a release. The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that this hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after the onset of core damage. In addition, these systems were ineffective at mitigating hydrogen releases from risk-significant accident sequences that could threaten containment integrity.
With the elimination of the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release, hydrogen monitors are no longer required to mitigate design-basis accidents and, therefore, the hydrogen monitors do not meet the definition of a safety-related component as defined in 10 CFR 50.2. RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.97 Category 1, is intended for key variables that most directly indicate the accomplishment of a safety function for design-basis accident events. The hydrogen monitors no longer meet the definition of Category 1 in RG 1.97. As part of the rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 50.44, the Commission found that Category 3, as defined in RG 1.97, is an appropriate categorization for the hydrogen monitors because the monitors are required to diagnose the course of beyond design-basis accidents.
The regulatory requirements for the hydrogen monitors can be relaxed without degrading the plant emergency response. The emergency response, in this sense, refers to the methodologies used in ascertaining the condition of the reactor core, mitigating the consequences of an accident, assessing and projecting offsite releases of radioactivity, and establishing protective action recommendations to be communicated to offsite authorities. Classification of the hydrogen monitors as Category 3, and removal of the hydrogen monitors from TS will not prevent an accident management strategy through the use of the SAMGs, the emergency plan (EP), the emergency operating procedures (EOP), and site survey monitoring that support modification of emergency plan protective action recommendations (PARs).
Therefore, the elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of
The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, will not result in any failure mode not previously analyzed. The hydrogen recombiner and hydrogen monitor equipment was intended to mitigate a design-basis hydrogen release. The hydrogen recombiner and hydrogen monitor equipment are not considered accident precursors, nor does their existence or elimination have any adverse impact on the pre-accident state of the reactor core or post accident confinement of radionuclides within the containment building.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, in light of existing plant equipment, instrumentation, procedures, and programs that provide effective mitigation of and recovery from reactor accidents, results in a neutral impact to the margin of safety.
The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that this hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after the onset of core damage.
Category 3—hydrogen monitors are adequate to provide rapid assessment of current reactor core conditions and the direction of degradation while effectively responding to the event in order to mitigate the consequences of the accident. The intent of the requirements established as a result of the TMI, Unit 2 accident can be adequately met without reliance on safety-related hydrogen monitors.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. Removal of hydrogen monitoring from TS will not result in a significant reduction in their functionality, reliability, and availability.
Based upon the reasoning presented above, the requested change does not involve a significant hazards consideration. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Fuel rod defects or failures are not considered as initiators for any previously analyzed accident; therefore the requested license amendment will have no effect on the probability of any previously evaluated accident. In addition, NRC-approved methodologies and technical reports have been used in the B1C13 specific reload safety evaluation to confirm that the fuel rod design limits will be met; therefore, increasing the burnup limit of the specified fuel assemblies to the requested value will not increase the consequences of any previously analyzed accident.
The regular ZIRLO
It has been shown in WCAP-12610-P-A, that even though there are variations in core inventories of isotopes due to extended burnup up to 75,000 MWD/MTU, there are no significant increases of isotopes that are major contributors to accident doses. It is worthy to note that, at higher burnups, there is actually a reduction in certain isotopes that are major dose contributors under accident situations (
Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change to increase the current fuel rod-average burnup limit does not involve the use or installation of new equipment and all currently installed equipment will not be operated in a new or different manner. No new or different system interactions are created and no new processes are introduced. The proposed change will not introduce any new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not already considered in the design and licensing bases.
Based on this evaluation, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed change to increase the current fuel rod-average burnup limit of 60,000 MWD/MTU up to 65,000 MWD/MTU during B1C13 will cause the following fuel rod design criteria to become more limiting: Fuel rod growth, clad fatigue, rod internal pressure and cladding corrosion. However, the regular ZIRLO
Based on the above evaluation, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Date of amendment request: November 14, 2003, as supplemented by letter dated December 23, 2003.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The probability of an evaluated accident is derived from the probabilities of the individual precursors to that accident. The consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by the operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those consequences. Limits have been established consistent with NRC approved methods to ensure that fuel performance during normal, transient, and accident conditions is acceptable. The proposed change conservatively establishes the SLMCPR for Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station (QCNPS), Unit 2, Cycle 18 such that the fuel is protected during normal operation and during any plant transients or anticipated operational occurrences (AOOs).
Changing the SLMCPR does not increase the probability of an evaluated accident. The change does not require any physical plant modifications, physically affect any plant components, or entail changes in plant operation. Therefore, no individual precursors of an accident are affected.
The proposed change revises the SLMCPR to protect the fuel during normal operation as well as during any transients or anticipated operational occurrences. Operational limits will be established based on the proposed SLMCPR to ensure that the SLMCPR is not violated during all modes of operation. This will ensure that the fuel design safety criterion (
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of accident would require creating one or more new precursors of that accident. New accident precursors may be created by modifications of plant configuration, including changes in allowable modes of operation. The proposed change does not involve any plant configuration modifications or changes to allowable modes of operation. The proposed change to the SLMCPR assures that safety criteria are maintained for QCNPS, Unit 2, Cycle 18.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The SLMCPR provides a margin of safety by ensuring that at least 99.9% of the fuel rods do not experience transition boiling during normal operation and AOOs if the MCPR limit is not violated. The proposed change will ensure the appropriate level of fuel protection. Additionally, operational limits will be established based on the proposed SLMCPR to ensure that the SLMCPR is not violated during all modes of operation. This will ensure that the fuel design safety criteria (
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The supplemental letter contained clarifying information and did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination and did not expand the scope of the original
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
(1) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety .
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed one-time change revises the Steam Generator (SG) inspection interval requirements in Technical Specifications (TS) 4.2.b.3.a, following the Kewaunee Nuclear Plant, spring 2003 refueling outage, to allow a 40-month inspection frequency after one inspection, rather than after two consecutive inspections results that are within the C-1 category.
The proposed on-time extension of the SG tube in-service inspection interval does not involve changing any structure, system, or component, or affect reactor operations. It is not an initiator of an accident and does not
Since the proposed change does not alter the plant design, there is no direct increase in SG leakage. Industry experience indicates that the probability of increased SG tube degradation would be very low. Additionally, steps described below will further minimize the risk associated with this extension. For example, the scope of inspections performed during the last KNPP refueling outage (
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change revises the SG inspection frequency requirements in TS 4.2.b.3.a, to allow a 40-month inspection interval after one inspection, rather than after two consecutive inspections with inspection results within the C-1 category.
The proposed change will not alter any plant design basis or postulated accident resulting from potential SG tube degradation. The scope of inspections (
Primary to secondary leakage that may be experienced during all plant conditions is expected to remain within current accident analysis assumptions. The proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs, the method of SG operation, or reactor coolant chemistry controls. No new equipment is being introduced, and installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. The proposed change involves a one-time extension to the SG tube in-service inspection frequency, and therefore will not give rise to new failure modes. In addition, the proposed change does not impact any other plant system or components.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The SG tubes are an integral part of the Reactor coolant System (RCS) pressure boundary that are relied upon to maintain the RCS pressure and inventory. The SG tubes isolate the radioactive fission products in the reactor coolant from the secondary system. The safety function of the SG is maintained by ensuring integrity of the SG tubes. In addition, the SG tubes comprise the heat transfer surface between the primary and secondary systems such that residual heat can be removed from the primary system.
SG tube integrity is a function of the design, environment, and current physical condition. Extending the SG tube inservice inspection frequency by one operating cycle will not alter the function or design of the SG. SG inspections conducted during the first refueling outage following SG replacement demonstrated that the SGs do not have an active damage mechanism, and the scope of those inspections significantly exceeded those required by the TS. These inspection results were comparable to similar inspection results for similar replacement SGs installed at other plants, and subsequent inspections at those plants yielded results that support this extension request. The improved design of the replacement SGs also provides reasonable assurance that significant tube degradation is not likely to occur over the proposed operating period.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change would provide the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant an exception from performing a required containment integrated leak rate test following the replacement of the steam generators in Unit 1.
Integrated leak rate tests are performed to assure the leak-tightness of the primary containment boundary system, and as such they are not accident initiators. Therefore, not performing an integrated leak rate test will not affect the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The intent of post-modification integrated leak rate testing requirements is to assure the leak-tight integrity of the area affected by the modification. For the Unit 1 steam generator replacement modification, this intent will be satisfied by performing the American Society of Mechanical Engineers code required inspections and tests. Since the leak-tightness integrity of the primary containment boundary affected by replacement of the steam generators will be assured, there is no change in the primary containment boundary's ability to confine radioactive materials during an accident.
Therefore adding a Technical Specification requirement that provides an exception for Unit 1 from the steam generator replacement post-modification integrated leak rate testing requirements does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change would provide the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant an exception from performing a required containment integrated leak rate test following the replacement of the steam generators in Unit 1.
Providing an exception from performing a test does not involve a physical change to the plant nor does it change the operation of the plant. Thus it cannot introduce a new failure mode.
Therefore adding a Technical Specification requirement that provides an exception for Unit 1 from the steam generator replacement post-modification integrated leak rate testing requirements does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change would provide the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant an exception from performing a required containment integrated leak rate test following the replacement of the steam generators in Unit 1.
The intent of post-modification integrated leak rate testing requirements is to assure the leak-tight integrity of the area affected by the modification. This intent will be satisfied by performing American Society of Mechanical Engineers code required inspections and tests. The acceptance criterion for American Society of Mechanical Engineers code system pressure testing for the base metal and welds is no leakage. In addition, the test pressure for the system pressure test will be several times that required during an integrated leak rate test. Since the leak-tight integrity of the primary containment boundary affected by replacement of the steam generators will be assured, there is no change in the primary containment boundary's ability to confine radioactive materials during an accident.
Therefore, adding a Technical Specification requirement that provides an exception for Unit 1 from the steam generator replacement post-modification integrated leak rate testing requirements does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The OPRM most directly affects the APRM [average power range monitor] and LPRM [local power range monitor] portions of the Power Range Neutron Monitoring system. Its installation does not affect the operation of these sub-systems. None of the accidents or equipment malfunctions affected by these sub-systems are affected by the presence or operation of the OPRM. The APRM channels provide the primary indication of neutron flux within the core and respond almost instantaneously to neutron flux changes. The APRM Fixed Neutron Flux-High function is capable of generating a trip signal to prevent fuel damage or excessive reactor pressure. For the ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] overpressurization protection analysis in FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report] Chapter 5, the APRM Fixed Neutron Flux-High function is assumed to terminate the main steam isolation valve closure event. The high flux trip, along with the safety/relief valves, limits the peak reactor pressure to less than the ASME Code limits. The control rod drop accident (CRDA) analysis in Chapter 15 takes credit for the APRM Fixed Neutron Flux-High function to terminate the CRDA. The Recirculation Flow Controller Failure event (pump runup) is also terminated by the high neutron flux trip. The APRM Fixed Neutron Flux-High function is required to be OPERABLE in MODE 1 where the potential consequences of the analyzed transients could result in the Safety Limits (
The installation of the OPRM equipment does not increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety. The APRM and RPS [Reactor Protection System] systems are designed to fail in a tripped (fail safe) condition; the OPRM will have no affect on the consequences of the failure of either system. An inoperative trip signal is received by the RPS any time an APRM mode switch is moved to any position other than Operate, an APRM module is unplugged, the electronic operating voltage is low, or the APRM has too few LPRM inputs. These functions are not specifically credited in the accident analysis, but are retained for the RPS as required by the NRC approved licensing basis.
The OPRM allows operation under operating conditions presently restricted by the current Technical Specifications by providing automatic suppression functions in the area of concern in the event an instability occurs. The consequences of any accident or equipment malfunction are not increased by operating under those conditions. Although protected by the OPRM from thermal-hydraulic core instabilities above 30% core power, operation under natural core circulation conditions is not allowed. No accidents or transients of a type not analyzed in the FSAR are created by operating under these conditions with the protection of the OPRM system.
This change does not increase the probability of an accident as previously evaluated. The OPRM is designed and installed to not degrade the existing APRM, LRPM, and RPS systems. These systems will still perform all of their intended functions. The new equipment is tested and installed to the same or more restrictive environmental and seismic envelopes as the existing systems. The new equipment has been designed and tested to electromagnetic interference (EMI) requirements which assure correct operation of the existing equipment. The new system has been designed to single failure criteria and is electrically isolated from equipment of different electrical divisions and from non-1E equipment. The electrical loading is within the capability of the existing power sources and the heat loads are within the capability of existing cooling systems. The OPRM allows operation under operating conditions presently forbidden or restricted by the current Technical Specifications. No other transient or accident analysis assumes these operating restrictions.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
This proposal does not create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The OPRM system is a monitoring and accident mitigation system that cannot create the possibility for an accident not previously evaluated.
The OPRM will allow operation in conditions restricted by the current Technical Specifications. Although protected by the OPRM from thermal-hydraulic core instabilities above 30% core power, operation under natural circulation conditions is not allowed. No accidents or transients of a type not analyzed in the FSAR are created by operating under these conditions with the protection of the OPRM system. No new failure modes of either the new OPRM equipment or of the existing APRM equipment have been introduced. Quality software design, testing, implementation and module self-health testing provides assurance that no new equipment malfunctions due to software errors are created. The possibility of an accident of a new or different type than any evaluated previouly is not created.
The new OPRM equipment is designed and installed to the same system requirements as the existing APRM equipment and is designed and tested to have no impact on the existing functions of the APRM system. Appropriate isolation is provided where new interconnections between redundant separation groups are formed. The OPRM modules have been designed and tested to assure that no new failure modes have been introduced.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
There has been no reduction in the margin of safety as defined in the basis for the Technical Specifications. The OPRM system does not negatively impact the existing APRM system. As a result, the margins in the Technical Specifications for the APRM system are not impacted by this addition.
Current operation under the ICAs [interim corrective actions] provides an acceptable margin of safety in the event of an instability event as the result of preventive actions and Technical Specification controlled response by the control room operators. The OPRM system provides an increase in the reliability of the protection of the margin of safety by providing automatic protection of the MCPR safety limit, while the protection burden is significantly reduced for the control room operators. This protection is demonstrated as described above, and in the NRC reviewed and approved Topical Reports NEDO-32465-A and CENPD-400-P-A.
Replacement of the ICA operating restrictions from Technical Specifications with the OPRM system does not affect the margin of safety associated with any other system or fuel design parameter.
Therefore, this change does not involve a reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed?
The proposed changes to Technical Specification Tables 3.3.2-1, 3.3.7.4-2, 3.4.3.2-1, and 3.6.3-1 do not involve a change in structures, systems, or components that would affect the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated in the Hope Creek Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
The proposed changes involve eliminating piping and valves associated with the reactor head spray. The reactor head spray system was initially provided to cool down the steam dryer and separator during shutdown. The head spray system is not credited for the prevention or mitigation of any accident. Therefore, neither the offsite or control room radiological consequences are affected. The head spray piping removal and addition of a bolted flange on the reactor coolant pressure boundary enhances plant safety by eliminating a source of pipe whip and potential leakage. In addition, the drywell penetration will be capped and welded closed. This will maintain primary containment integrity and will be periodically tested in conjunction with the containment integrated leak rate test.
Therefore, as discussed above, this modification does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences from any accident previously analyzed.
2. Does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed?
The proposed changes to Technical Specification Tables 3.3.2-1, 3.3.7.4-2, 3.4.3.2-1, and 3.6.3-1 do not involve a change in structures, systems, or components that would create a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated in the Hope Creek Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
The proposed change to eliminate the head spray piping and the addition of a bolted flange on the reactor coolant pressure boundary enhances plant safety by eliminating a source of pipe whip and potential leakage. In addition, the drywell penetration will be capped and welded closed. This will maintain primary containment integrity and will be tested in conjunction with the containment integrated leak rate test.
Therefore, as discussed above, this modification does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
The proposed change to delete the head spray valves from Tables 3.3.2-1, 3.3.7.4-2, 3.4.3.2-1, and 3.6.3-1 does not reduce any margin of safety as defined in the Technical Specifications or Bases. The bolted flange that will be installed on the head spray penetration will maintain the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. This flange would then be tested as part of the reactor pressure vessel hydrostatic test. In addition, the drywell penetration will be capped and welded closed. This will maintain primary containment integrity and will be tested as part of the containment integrated leak rate test.
Accordingly, based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed changes increase the Completion Time for an inoperable battery, relocate preventative maintenance requirements to licensee controlled programs, and generally restructure the TS [technical specification] requirements for DC [direct current] sources. The revised requirements will allow licensed operators to focus their attention on battery parameters that are indicative of battery operability as opposed to preventative maintenance issues. The increased Completion Time for an inoperable battery will allow corrective maintenance to be accomplished via a more orderly and effective work process. It will also minimize the potential for an additional shutdown/restart transient to comply with the TS in order to accomplish the required maintenance. The DC sources are not initiators to any analyzed accident sequence. Operation in accordance with the proposed TS will continue to ensure that the DC sources remain capable of performing their safety function and that all analyzed accidents will continue to be mitigated as previously analyzed.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
No. The proposed changes do not introduce any new equipment, create new failure modes for existing equipment, or create any new limiting single failures. Plant operation will not be altered, and all safety functions previously addressed in accident analyses will continue to be performed.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
No. The proposed changes will not adversely affect operation of plant equipment—principally the four Class 1E DC sources and the equipment supported by them. The changes aimed at restructuring the TS requirements for DC sources will have the effect of reducing the burden on licensed operators by focusing the TS requirements on conditions that impair DC source operability. Requirements related to preventive maintenance will be addressed via new Specification 5.5.19 and the plant maintenance program. Margin to the battery operability requirements will continue to be maintained at current levels in accordance with IEEE-450. The extended Completion Time for an inoperable battery has been shown to have a negligible impact on plant risk using the criteria of Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change to SR [surveillance requirement] 3.3.1.2 does not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report]. This modification does not directly initiate an accident. The consequences of accidents previously evaluated in the FSAR are not adversely affected by this proposed change because the change to the NIS [nuclear instrumentation system] Power Range channel adjustment requirement ensures the conservative response of the channel even at part power levels. The proposed change to SR 3.3.1.3 is to change the format consistent with the format of the proposed change to SR 3.3.1.2.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change to SR 3.3.1.2 does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident than any accident already evaluated in the FSAR. No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. The proposed Technical Specifications change does not challenge the performance or integrity of any safety-related systems. The proposed change to SR 3.3.1.3 is to change the format to be consistent with the format of the proposed change to SR 3.3.1.2.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
The proposed change to SR 3.3.1.2 does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed change does require a revision to the criterion for implementation of Power Range channel adjustment based on secondary power calorimetric calculation; however, the change does not eliminate any RTS [reactor trip system] surveillances or alter the frequency of surveillances required by the Technical Specifications. The revision to the criterion for implementation of the daily surveillance will have a conservative effect on the performance of the NIS Power Range channel, particularly at part power after normalization at 100% RTP [rated thermal power] conditions. The nominal trip setpoints specified by the Technical Specifications and the safety analysis limits assumed in the transient and accident analysis are unchanged. The margin of safety associated with the acceptance criteria for any accident is unchanged. The proposed change to SR 3.3.1.3 is to change the format to be consistent with the format of the proposed change to SR 3.3.1.2.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change to TS [technical specification] section 5.5.12, “Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program”, involves an increase to the peak post accident primary containment pressure. It does not involve physical changes to the primary containment structure itself, nor to any of its support systems and components, nor does it involve changes to any other systems and components designed for the prevention of previously analyzed events. Consequently, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability of occurrence of a previously evaluated event.
The increase in operating pressure for the Hatch reactors from 1035 psig to 1045 psig results in an increase to the peak post-accident primary containment internal pressure. This pressure increases from 50.5 to 50.8 psig for Unit 1 and from 46.9 to 47.3 psig for Unit 2. This is a very small increase with respect to the Unit 1 and 2 primary containment design pressure of 56 psig and with the maximum code allowable pressure of 62 psig. The primary containment thus remains capable of withstanding the post accident pressure and thus the consequences of a previously evaluated event are not increased.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The primary containment boundary will not be altered by the proposed change to
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant decrease in the margin of safety?
The change in the analyzed peak post accident containment pressure will require that the containment be tested to ensure that it meets leakage acceptance criteria at the new pressures of 50.8 psig and 47.3 psig for Units 1 and 2 respectively. Therefore, the primary containment's ability to sustain the slightly higher pressures will be verified during leak rate testing at the required intervals.
The Unit 1 peak pressure increases from 50.5 to 50.8 psig and the Unit 2 pressure increases from 46.9 to 47.3 psig. The primary containment design pressure is 56 psig for both units and the maximum code allowable pressure is 62 psig. Therefore, the margin to the design and maximum code allowable pressures has not been significantly affected. As a result, this proposed Technical Specifications change does not significantly reduce the margin of safety associated with the primary containment function.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The following notices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing in connection with these actions was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
The supplement dated October 1, 2003, provided clarifying information that did not change the scope of the July 14, 2003, application nor the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 23, 2003.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 23, 2003.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 30, 2003.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The October 24, 2003, supplemental letter provided clarifying information that did not change the scope of the original
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 8, 2004.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Date of initial notice in
The staff's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 5, 2004.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 7, 2004.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 5, 2004.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
TVA's supplemental letters provided clarifying information that did not expand the scope of the original application or change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 30, 2003.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual 30-day Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have been issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating License, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to the issuance of the amendment. By February 19, 2004, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the above date. Because of the continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that petitions for leave to intervene and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for a hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated December 30, 2003.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Under rule 57(a) a Form U-57 must be used by a person filing under sections 33(a)(3)(B) and 33(c)(1) of the Act. The 101 annual responses together incur about 405 burden hours to comply with these requirements. The Commission estimates that the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden is 405 (101 annual responses x 10 hours = 1010 burden hours). This represents the same estimated hours annually in the paperwork burden from the prior estimate. The Commission needs the information required by Rule 57(a) in order for the Commission to be informed of when a registered holding company becomes a foreign utility company or when it acquires a foreign utility company. The Commission uses this information to determine the existence of detriment to the interests the Act was designed to protect. Compliance with the requirements to provide the information is mandatory. The information will not be kept confidential.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Kenneth A. Fogash, Acting Associate Executive Director/CIO, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Under rule 55, a filing must be under section 33(c)(1) of the Act for a “safe harbor” for acquisitions of foreign utility companies by registered holding companies. The filing is made only for foreign utility companies that meet specific criteria. Rule 55 is a proposal, and has not yet been adopted in final. The Commission estimates that 11 annual responses together incur about 39,710 burden hours to comply with these requirements. The Commission estimates that the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden is 110 (11 annual responses × 10 hours = 110 burden hours). This represents a decrease of 39,600 hours annually in the paperwork burden from the prior estimate, and this decrease was caused by a decrease in the number of annual responses. The Commission needs the information because it gives the registered holding company a “safe harbor” when it acquires a foreign utility company that meets specified criteria. The Commission uses this information to determine the existence of detriment to the interests the Act was designed to protect. Compliance with the requirements to provide the information is mandatory. The information will not be kept confidential.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Kenneth A. Fogash, Acting Associate Executive Director/CIO, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 11Aa3-2 provides that self-regulatory organizations (SROs) may, acting jointly, file a national market system plan or may propose an amendment to an effective national market system plan by submitting the text of the plan or amendment to the Secretary of the Commission, together with a statement of the purpose of such plan or amendment and, to the extent applicable, the documents and information required by paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) of Rule 11Aa3-2.
The collection of information is designed to permit the Commission to achieve its statutory directive to facilitate the development of a national market system. The information is used to determine if a national market system plan, or an amendment thereto, should be approved and implemented.
The respondents to the collection of information are self-regulatory organizations (as defined by the Act), including national securities exchanges, national securities associations, registered clearing agencies and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board.
The respondents to the collection of information are self-regulatory organizations (as defined by the Act), including national securities exchanges and national securities associations.
Ten respondents file an average total of thirteen responses per year, which corresponds to an estimated annual response burden of 433 hours.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Direct your written comments to Kenneth A. Fogash, Acting Associate Executive Director/CIO, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
Information relevant to Rule 87 (17 CFR 250.87) under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (15 U.S.C. 79a
These estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of SEC rules and forms. There is no requirement to keep the information in the forms confidential because it is public information.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Kenneth A. Fogash, Acting Associate Executive Director/CIO, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Under rule 20(c) of the Act, Form U-1 must be used by any person filing for amending an application or declaration under sections 6(b), 7, 9(c)(3), 10, 12(b), (c), (d), or (f) of the Act. The form must also be used for filings under any rule under other sections of the Act for which a form is not prescribed. The Commission estimates that the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden is 24,753 (111 annual responses × 223 hours = 24,753 burden hours). This represents a decrease of 2,684 hours annually in the paperwork burden from the prior estimate, and this decrease was caused by a decrease in the number of annual responses. The Commission needs the information because rule 20(c) requires it. The Commission uses this information to determine the existence of detriment to the interests the Act was designed to protect. Compliance with the requirements to provide the information is mandatory. The information will not be kept confidential.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Kenneth A. Fogash, Acting Associate Executive Director/CIO, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street NW., Washington, DC 20549.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Under rule 1(c) and section 14 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (“Act”), Form U5S must be filed annually by all registered holding companies. Form U5S contains broad ranging information such as a description of system companies, acquisitions and sales of utility assets, securities transactions, and other information necessary for the staff to ascertain compliance with the Act. The Commission estimates that the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden is 445.5 (28 original annual responses plus 5 amendments × 13.5 hours = 445.5 burden hours). This represents an increase of 189 hours annually in the paperwork burden from the prior estimate, and this increase was caused by an increase in the number of registered holding companies over the period as well as the need for some registrants to make a subsequent amendment to the Form U5S due to the inadequacy of their original filing. The Commission needs the information because rule 1(c) requires it. The Commission uses this information to determine the existence of detriment to the interests the Act was designed to protect. Compliance with the requirements to provide the information is mandatory. The information will not be kept confidential.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Kenneth A. Fogash, Acting Associate Executive Director/CIO, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Amex proposes to codify in Amex Rules 128A, 1000, and 1000A current practices regarding the participation in Exchange Traded Fund trades executed on the Exchange by registered traders and specialists and the allocation by the specialist of those trades to the appropriate party. The text of the proposed rule change, as amended, is set forth below. Deleted language is in [brackets]; proposed new language is
The Exchange shall determine the size and other parameters of orders eligible for execution by its Automatic Execution System (Auto-Ex). An Auto-Ex eligible order for any account in which the same person is directly or indirectly interested may only be entered at intervals of no less than 10 seconds between entry of each such order on the same side of the market in a security. Members and member organizations are responsible for establishing procedures to prevent orders in a security on the same side of the market for any account in which the same person is directly or indirectly interested from being entered at intervals of less than 10 seconds.
.01 through .04 No change.
.05 Specialists and Registered Options Traders that sign-on to Auto-Ex will be automatically allocated the contra side of Auto-Ex trades for ETFs [according to the following schedule:]
At the start of each trading day, the sequence in which trades will be allocated to the specialist and Registered Options Traders signed-on to Auto-Ex will be randomly determined. Auto-Ex trades then will be automatically allocated in sequence on a rotating basis to the specialist and to the Registered Options Traders that have signed-on to the system so that the specialist and the crowd achieve their “target ratios” over the course of a trading session. If an Auto-Ex eligible order is greater than 100 shares, Auto-Ex will divide the trade into lots of 100 shares each. Each lot will be considered a separate trade for purposes of determining target ratios and allocating trades within Auto-Ex.
.06 No change.
(a) through (b) No change.
.01 through .04 No change.
.05 [Reserved]
.06 [Reserved]
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
(a) through (b) No change.
.01 through .05 No change.
.06 [Reserved]
.07 [Reserved]
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In its filing with the Commission, the Amex included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, as amended, and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Since the inception of trading Exchange Traded Funds
In the course of making markets, specialists are often on parity with registered traders, that is, bidding and offering simultaneously to provide liquidity. Generally, Exchange Rule 126 provides that when bids (offers) are made simultaneously all such bids (offers) are on parity, and any securities sold (bought) in execution of such bids (offers) shall be divided as equally as possible between those on parity up to the participant's stated or generally known sizes. In addition, as further discussed below, the trading crowds in many option classes give the specialist a greater than equal share when on parity with registered traders. This proposal seeks to codify in the Exchange's rules these current allocation practices.
Although this rule proposal seeks to codify the participation in and
It is the specialist's responsibility to allocate executed ETF shares among all participants to a trade. This is generally a manual process involving the inputting of participant information into the Point of Sale (or POS) Book. However, as provided in the proposed Rules 1000, Commentary .08(b) and 1000A, Commentary .09(b), whenever a trade occurs without the participation of the specialist (
Depending upon the level of activity and volatility of a particular ETF, the level of participation of an individual registered trader in each ETF would vary. Registered traders who regularly or only occasionally trade a particular ETF are currently expected to and would be required under the proposed codification in Rules 1000 and 1000A, to announce, either at the start of the trading day, upon entry into the trading crowd, or prior to the dissemination of a quotation, the number of shares in which they are willing to participate. These generally known sizes would be aggregated into the size disseminated by the Exchange pursuant to the firm quote rule so that the disseminated quote in each ETF reflects the level of participation by the specialist and each registered trader. While the specialist would not be required to announce his size to the trading crowd, his size could be determined from the disseminated quote size. As transactions occur, the specialist would allocate ETF shares to registered traders based upon these stated participation sizes.
The Exchange states that over the years, it, as well as registered traders and specialists, has recognized that, given their role, specialists should be entitled to a greater than equal share when on parity with registered traders. As a result, a practice has developed in Amex trading crowds for many products to give the specialist a greater than equal share when on parity with registered traders. The Exchange now seeks to codify this practice.
The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to provide a greater participation to specialists since they have responsibilities and are subject to certain costs that registered traders do not have. For example, they have a continuous obligation to the market; to update and disseminate quotes in all securities; to reflect all market interest in the displayed quotes; and to act as contra-party on Auto-Ex at all times. In addition, specialists incur the fixed staffing costs committed to market making in a particular security whether it is actively traded or not, and the costs associated with participating in educational and marketing functions to attract order flow. In order to attract to the Exchange specialist units that are willing to accept these responsibilities, the Amex believes it is necessary to provide specialists with an enhanced participation in ETFs. The Exchange also believes that in order to be competitive with other exchanges that currently trade ETFs without market makers or registered traders, it must have the flexibility to determine the appropriate specialist participation.
The Exchange has determined that the specialist's participation for each ETF can and should vary depending upon the liquidity of the product, the type of orders sent to the Exchange and its competitors, and the type of order flow the Exchange seeks to attract in each ETF product. As a result, the Exchange has established the ETF Trading Committee (“Committee”) to determine the level of the specialist's participation on a case-by-case basis for ETFs.
Exchange policy currently applies the following specialist's participation levels:
It should be emphasized that the participation rights being established by the Committee would apply only when the specialist and/or registered traders are on parity and would not include situations where a customer order is also on parity with the specialist and registered traders. It should be noted, however, that a specialist cannot be on parity with an order for which he is acting as agent, and registered traders (who never act as agents and trade only for their own accounts) cannot be on parity with a customer when either establishing or increasing their position in the ETF. In such situations, as provided in proposed Rules 1000, Commentary .08(a)(iii) and 1000A, Commentary .09(a)(iii), the specialist would first allocate executed shares to the customer and to the specialist and/or those registered traders on parity with the customer. Any shares that remain would be allocated among the specialist and registered traders in accordance with proposed Rules 1000, Commentary .07 and 1000A, Commentary .08, which provides that the specialist would receive a participation in the remaining shares in accordance with the level set by the Committee. In addition, neither the specialist nor a registered trader would be allocated more executed shares than the number of shares representing the specialist's or registered trader's portion of the aggregate quotation size that the responsible broker or dealer would be obligated to communicate to the Exchange pursuant to firm quote rule, except when the number of executed shares to be allocated exceeded the aggregate quotation size disseminated for that ETF. Thus, for the following two examples, assume that the aggregate quotation size is 1,000 shares, the specialist's portion is 250 shares, and the registered trader's portion is 750 shares.
An off-floor order to sell 800 shares is submitted for execution at the disseminated bid. The Committee has determined for this ETF that the specialist would be entitled to 60% of the executed shares. The specialist, however, would only be allocated 250 executed shares, and the registered trader would be allocated 550 executed shares.
An off-floor order to sell 2,000 shares is submitted for execution at the disseminated bid. The specialist and registered trader would first be allocated 250 shares and 750 shares respectively, plus the specialist would receive 60% of the remaining 1,000 shares for a total of 850 shares, and the registered trader would receive 40% for a total of 1,150 shares.
Once the specialist determines his portion of the trade depending upon the number of traders on parity, he would deduct his portion and allocate the remaining shares to the registered traders based upon: (i) An equal distribution, as described in the first example below; (ii) filling the smallest size(s) first, as described in the second example below; (iii) a combination based on filling the smallest size first and equal distribution, as described in the third example below; or (iv) prorated based on the registered traders' generally known sizes and the percentage those sizes represent of their aggregate disseminated size, as described in the fourth example below. The number of shares in the incoming order would determine which of the methods would be used in the allocation.
Assume the following information for each of the following four examples: the disseminated bid for a particular ETF has an aggregate size of 10,000 shares. The specialist is bidding for 6,500 shares, and four registered traders' generally known sizes are as follows: Trader A—2,000 shares; Trader B—1,000 shares; Trader C—300 shares; and Trader D—200 shares. There are no customer orders participating in the bid. The Committee has determined for this ETF that the specialist would receive 40% of the executed shares, and the registered traders would split the remaining 60%.
An off-floor order to sell 1,000 shares is submitted for execution at the disseminated bid. The specialist would allocate the executed shares as follows: the specialist would receive 400 shares (or 40%), and would allocate the remaining executed shares equally to each of the four traders 150 shares (or 25% of the remaining 600 shares).
An off-floor order to sell 5,000 shares is submitted for execution at the disseminated bid. The executed shares would be allocated by the specialist as follows: (i) The specialist would receive 40% (2,000 shares) of the 5,000 executed shares pursuant to the Committee's determination; and (ii) the remaining 60% (3,000 shares) would be divided among the registered traders based upon their generally known sizes with an attempt to completely fill the smallest size(s) first, which in this example would be 200 shares for Trader D, 300 shares for Trader C, and 1,000 shares for Trader B. A total of 1,500 shares would be deducted, leaving 1,500 shares to be allocated to Trader A.
An off-floor order to sell 2,000 shares is submitted for execution at the disseminated bid. The executed shares would be allocated by the specialist as follows: (i) The specialist would receive 40% (800 shares) of the 2,000 executed shares pursuant to the Committee's determination; and (ii) the remaining 60% (1,200 shares) would be divided among the registered traders based upon their generally known sizes with an attempt to completely fill the smallest size(s) first and an equal distribution of any remainder. Thus, the smallest sizes would be filled first: 200 shares for Trader D, and 300 shares for Trader C, and the remaining 1,100 shares would be divided equally, with 550 shares distributed each to Trader A and Trader B. Trader B would not receive 1,000 shares (its generally known size) because such size would be more than an equal share of the remaining 1,100 shares.
An off-floor order to sell 20,000 shares is submitted for execution at the disseminated bid. Pursuant to the firm quote rule, the specialist and registered traders, as the responsible broker or dealers, would be obligated to execute order(s) at the disseminated bid up to their disseminated size. The specialist and traders would be able to execute the first 10,000 shares at the disseminated bid and execute the remaining shares at a lower bid or bids. If, however, the specialist and registered traders have determined, either individually or collectively (pursuant to Rule 958(h)(ii)), to execute the entire order at their disseminated bid, the executed shares would be allocated as follows: (i) The specialist would receive 6,500 executed shares representing his portion of the aggregate quotation size, plus 40% of the remaining 10,000 executed shares pursuant to the participation rates set forth above for a total of 10,500 executed shares; and (ii) the remaining 60% (9,500 shares) would be divided among the registered traders proportionally based upon their generally known sizes, the aggregate of which, in this example would be 3,500 shares: Trader A would receive an allocation of approximately 5,420 shares (2,000/3,500=57% of the 9,500); Trader B would receive an allocation of approximately 2,750 shares (1,000/3,500=29% of the 9,500 shares); Trader C would receive an allocation of approximately 810 shares (300/3,500=8.5% of the 9,500 shares); and Trader D would receive an allocation of approximately 520 shares (200/3,500=5.5% of the 9,500 shares).
In addition, the proposed rule text sets forth a chart that illustrates how different numbers of executed shares would be allocated to registered traders after the specialist has allocated portions to the customer and to the specialist. In each example, the chart assumes the aggregate stated size is 1,000 shares:
The first column illustrates the situation when the number of executed shares exceeds the registered traders' aggregate stated size, and each registered trader has determined either individually or collectively to participate for a larger size. The rest of the columns illustrate situations when the number of executed shares is less than the registered traders aggregate stated size: The second column illustrates the situation when two of the three registered traders' smaller sizes would be filled first and the third registered trader would be allocated the remainder; the third column illustrates the situation when only one registered trader's smallest size would be filled and the remaining executed shares would be allocated equally between the two remaining registered traders; and the fourth column illustrates the situation when all executed shares would be allocated equally among the participating registered traders.
In addition, a question has arisen with respect to other products in which the Exchange has codified its rules regarding the allocation of executed orders
Finally, with respect to automatic execution for ETFs, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 128A to replace the schedule set forth in the rule, which shows the percentage of the approximate number of trades allocated to the specialist and registered traders signed on to Auto-Ex in a given ETF, with a reference to the Committee's determination of the appropriate percentages to be used in allocating Auto-Ex executed ETF shares.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Comments may also be submitted electronically at the following e-mail address:
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 25, 2003, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1034 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirement of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act that the rules of the Exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charged among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities.
Furthermore, the Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice thereof in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On October 16, 2003, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Through a series of related filings, BSE is proposing to establish a new options trading facility
Currently, there are three unitholders who have a direct controlling interest in BOX (“direct controlling parties”): Bourse de Montréal Inc. (“Bourse”) (31.27%), the largest derivatives exchange in Canada; BSE (26.89%); and Interactive Brokers Group LLC (“IBG”) (22.41%), a registered broker-dealer that intends to apply to be an Option Participant in the BOX facility.
Section 8.1(a) of the LLCOA defines a Transfer broadly to be any disposition of, sale, assignment, exchange, participation, subparticipation, encumbrance, or other transfer of units, and provides that, except in certain limited circumstances, no Person may directly or indirectly Transfer any BOX LLC units, or any rights arising thereunder, without the prior approval of the board of directors of BOX LLC.
Section 8.4(e) of the LLCOA provides that, beginning after Commission approval of this proposed rule change, BOX LLC must provide the Commission with written notice ten days prior to the closing date of any acquisition that results in a unitholder's percentage ownership interest in BOX LLC, alone or together with any affiliate,
Section 8.4(g) of the LLCOA provides for indirect changes in control of BOX LLC. Any person that acquires a controlling interest (
In addition to the requirements for proposed rule changes relating to direct and indirect changes in control of BOX LLC, Section 4.3(b) of the LLCOA prohibits unitholders from entering into voting trust agreements with respect to their ownership interests in BOX LLC.
In Section 19.6(a), each unitholder of BOX LLC acknowledges that, to the extent that they are related to BOX activities, the books, records, premises, officers, directors, agents, and employees of the unitholder shall be deemed to be the books, records, premises, officers, directors, agents, and employees of BSE for the purpose of and subject to oversight pursuant to the Act. In Section 19.6(b), each unitholder and the officers, directors, agents, and employees thereof irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. federal courts, the Commission, and BSE
Section 19.6(c) of the LLCOA provides that the BSE and each unitholder shall take such action as is necessary to ensure that such unitholder's officers, directors, and employees consent to the application of Section 19.6 with respect to their BOX-related activities.
Section 4.2(b) of the LLCOA gives the board of directors of BOX LLC the power and responsibility to manage the business of BOX LLC, select and evaluate the performance of the Senior Executive, and establish and monitor capital and operating budgets. Section 4.1(a) provides that the board of BOX LLC will consist of between six and 13 directors. Section 4.1(b) provides that, initially, Bourse, BSE, and IBG will be entitled to designate two directors each. Moreover, for as long as BOX remains a facility of the Exchange, BSE has the right to designate at least one director. Section 4.1(c) provides that any new unitholder that acquires a prescribed percentage interest in BOX LLC also would be entitled to designate one director. Section 4.8 provides that, except as otherwise expressly provided in the LLCOA or as requested by the board, no unitholder shall take part in the day-to-day management or operation of the business or affairs of BOX LLC.
Pursuant to Section 4.1(d) of the LLCOA, a director shall be terminated by the board: (i) In the event such director has violated any provision of the LLCOA; or (ii) if the board determines that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors. In addition, Section 4.2(a) requires each director to comply with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder and to cooperate with the Commission and BSE pursuant to their regulatory authority. Section 4.2(a) also requires each director to take into consideration whether his or her actions as a director would cause BOX LLC to engage in conduct that fosters and does not interfere with its ability to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices; promote just and equitable principles of trade; foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities; remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system; and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.
BSE will operate BOX as a facility of the Exchange. Accordingly, BSE has responsibility under the Act for the BOX facility. In this regard, Sections 12.1 and 15 of the LLCOA each provide that the books, records, premises, officers, directors, agents, and employees of BOX shall be deemed to be the books, records, premises, officers, directors, agents, and employees of BSE for the purpose of and subject to oversight pursuant to the Act. Moreover, under Section 5.3 of the LLCOA, each unitholder agrees to comply with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder; to cooperate with the Commission and BSE pursuant to their regulatory authority and the provisions of the LLCOA; and to engage in conduct that fosters and does not interfere with BOX LLC's ability to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices; promote just and equitable principles of trade; foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities; remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system; and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.
Section 5.9 of the LLCOA further provides that, after appropriate notice and opportunity for hearing, the board, by a two-thirds vote, including the affirmative vote of BSE and excluding the vote of the unitholder subject to sanction, may suspend or terminate a unitholder's voting privileges or ownership: (i) In the event such unitholder is subject to a statutory disqualification, as defined in Section 3(a)(39) of the Act; (ii) in the event such unitholder has violated any provision of the LLCOA or any federal or state securities law; or (iii) if the board determines that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
In addition, Section 4.4(a) of the LLCOA provides that BOX LLC may not take any major action unless such action is approved by a majority of the board, including the affirmative vote of all of the directors designated by BSE. A “major action” is defined in Section 4.4(b) to include, among other things, a merger or consolidation involving BOX LLC, a sale of any material portion of its assets, the dissolution or winding-up of BOX LLC, entry by BOX into any line of business other than that set forth in the LLCOA, entering into any agreement, commitment, or transaction with an affiliate of a unitholder that is not on commercially reasonable terms, and the purchase of any units of BOX LLC.
Section 16.2(a) of the LLCOA generally provides that a unitholder may not disclose any confidential information of BOX LLC to any person, except as expressly provided by the LLCOA. However, Section 16.2(b) provides exceptions for, among other things, disclosure required by the federal securities laws or in response to a request by the Commission pursuant to the Act or by the BSE. Similarly, Section 16.5 of the LLCOA provides that nothing in the LLCOA should be interpreted as to limit or impede the rights of the Commission, BSE, or BOXR to access or examine BOX Confidential Information, or to limit or impede the ability of unitholders, or their officers, directors, agents, or employees, to disclose BOX Confidential Information to the Commission, BSE, or BOXR.
Section 8.4(h) of the LLCOA imposes a “voting collar” on any unitholder who, alone or together with an affiliate, has an interest in BOX LLC in excess of 20% and is also an Options Participant in the BOX market. The interests owned by such a unitholder in excess of 20% are deemed “excess units.” No unitholder who is also an Options Participant is permitted to vote or give proxy rights to vote with respect to any excess units. However, Section 8.4(h) further provides that the excess units would be considered for quorum purposes of any meeting of the board, and the person presiding over quorum and vote matters would vote the excess
BSE is proposing a temporary exemption until January 1, 2014 from the voting collar provisions of Section 8.4(h) for IBG, a unitholder that is also an Options Participant. Under the second paragraph of Section 8.4(h), IBG is permitted to vote its excess units, but only with respect to any vote regarding a merger, consolidation, or dissolution of BOX LLC or any sale of all or substantially all of the assets of BOX LLC.
The Commission received one comment letter on the proposal, from the Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”).
In addition, CBOE criticizes the manner in which BSE presented the LLCOA to the Commission for its review under Section 19(b) of the Act, arguing that BSE should have filed the LLCOA in its entirety, rather than in redacted form. In support of that view, CBOE likens an LLCOA to the articles of incorporation of a corporation and claims that, if an entity organized as a corporation applied for registration as a national securities exchange, it would be required to provide its articles in their entirety. CBOE argues, in addition, that “the filing does not present a comprehensive description of who are the owners of BOX,” noting that only the three controlling unitholders that collectively have an ownership interest of 80.67% were listed. CBOE notes that its concerns about the ownership and control of BOX LLC were “heightened by the fact that BOX's largest single owner is a non-U.S. person.” CBOE also objects to redactions to the LLCOA regarding the “major actions” over which BSE had veto power, arguing that a proper analysis of BOX's governance and regulation could not be performed without the redacted information. CBOE concludes that “the idea that an applicant can pick and choose which provisions of the [LLCOA] of an exchange to submit for review is wholly inconsistent with the statutory scheme of exchange regulation provided for in the Exchange Act.”
After careful consideration of the proposal and the comment letter submitted by CBOE, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act
BOX LLC is the limited liability company established under Delaware law that will operate the BSE's proposed options trading facility.
Nevertheless, certain provisions in the LLCOA may be rules of an exchange if they are the stated policies, practices, and interpretations, as defined in Rule 19b-4 of the Act, of the BSE. Any proposed rule or any proposed change in, addition to, or deletion from any such rules of an exchange must be filed pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder. In its comment letter, the CBOE contends that the BSE should have filed the entire LLCOA. The Commission, however, does not believe that Section 19(b) of the Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder requires that all provisions of a document must be filed solely because some provisions of that document are rules of the exchange.
BSE has filed the proposed rule change to establish BOX LLC as the operator of one of its facilities, despite the fact that BSE does not hold the largest ownership interest in BOX LLC. As a preliminary matter, the Commission does not believe that the ownership structure of BOX LLC precludes approval of this proposal. The Act does not require that an SRO have any ownership interest in the operator of one of its facilities.
In a similar prior case involving the establishment of ArcaEx as a facility of the Pacific Exchange (“PCX”), the Commission determined that a national securities exchange need not have a significant ownership interest in the operator of one of its facilities.
Although BOX LLC itself will not carry out any regulatory functions, all of its activities must be consistent with the Act. Under Section 5.3 of the LLCOA, each unitholder of BOX LLC agrees to comply with federal securities law; to cooperate with the Commission and BSE pursuant to their regulatory authority and the provisions of the LLCOA; and to engage in conduct that fosters and does not interfere with BOX LLC's ability to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices; promote just and equitable principles of trade; foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities; remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system; and, in general, protect investors and the public interest. Section 4.2(a) of the LLCOA imposes similar obligations on each director of BOX LLC. Section 4.2(a) also requires each director to cooperate with the Commission and BSE in carrying out their regulatory responsibilities. These provisions reinforce the notion that BOX, as a facility of an exchange, is not solely a commercial enterprise; it is an integral part of an SRO registered pursuant to the Act and, as such, is subject to obligations imposed by the Act.
These obligations endure so long as BOX is a facility of the Exchange, regardless of the size of BSE's ownership interest in BOX LLC, the operator of that facility. The BSE currently owns a controlling interest in the operator of the facility and if, in the future, it wishes to reduce its interest in BOX LLC to below 20%, the amendments to the LLCOA to effect such a Transfer of units would, pursuant to Section 8.4(f)(ii) of the LLCOA, have to be filed as a proposed rule change under Section 19(b) of the Act. The Commission believes that this is a reasonable measure to alert the Commission to a significant reduction of BSE's interest in BOX LLC. Such a reduction could warrant additional review of the LLCOA to ensure that BSE's responsibilities as the SRO of the BOX facility are not compromised.
The LLCOA includes additional provisions that make special accommodations for BSE as the SRO of the BOX facility. For example, Section 4.4(a) of the LLCOA provides that BOX LLC may not take any major action unless such action is approved by a majority of the BOX LLC board, including the affirmative vote of all of the directors designated by BSE.
Because the BSE has proposed to operate BOX as its facility, the BSE's obligations under the Act extend to its members' activities on BOX, as well as to the operation and administration of BOX. The Commission believes that Section 19 of the Act affords the Commission the ability to determine whether the BSE's proposal is consistent with the Act, as would a separate application by BOX to register as a securities exchange.
The Commission believes that the restrictions in the LLCOA on direct and indirect changes in control of BOX LLC are sufficient so that BSE is able to carry out its self-regulatory responsibilities and that the Commission can fulfill its responsibilities under the Act. Schedule D of the LLCOA lists all unitholders of BOX LLC, the number of units each holds, and the percentage of ownership in BOX LLC that such units represent. A change to this schedule (as well as to any other provision of the LLCOA) would have to be filed with the Commission if so required under Section 19(b) of the Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder. In addition, Section 8.4(f) of the LLCOA provides that BSE must file with the Commission as a proposed rule change any amendment to the LLCOA resulting from a proposed acquisition of BOX LLC units that would cause the acquirer to meet or cross the 20% ownership threshold or any subsequent 5% ownership threshold (
Furthermore, Section 8.4(e) of the LLCOA requires BSE to inform the Commission in writing at least ten days before any proposed acquisition of BOX LLC units that would result in the acquirer meeting or crossing the 5%, 10%, or 15% ownership thresholds. The Commission believes that this approach is consistent with the Act in that it is analogous to the ongoing reporting
Exhibit K imposes no obligation on an exchange to report parties whose ownership interest in the exchange is less than 5%. Similarly, Section 8.4(e) of the LLCOA requires BSE to notify the Commission of an interest in BOX LLC only when that interest reaches 5% or more. The Commission does not believe that the identity of a party that has less than a 5% interest in a facility of a national securities exchange is a “rule of the exchange” that must be filed pursuant to Section 19(b) and Rule 19b-4(b) thereunder. In this regard, the Commission does not agree with CBOE's comment that the filing “does not present a comprehensive description of who are the owners of BOX.”
In addition, Section 8.4(g) of the LLCOA would require an indirect controlling party to join the LLCOA. This amendment to the agreement would trigger a proposed rule change that BSE must file with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act. The proposed rule change would alert the Commission to the existence of a proposed indirect controlling party and present the Commission and BSE with an opportunity to determine what additional measures, if any, might be necessary to provide sufficient regulatory jurisdiction over the proposed indirect controlling party.
In conclusion, the Commission believes that Sections 8.4(e), (f), and (g) of the LLCOA, together with the requirements of Section 19(b) of the Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, provide the Commission with sufficient authority over changes in control of BOX LLC to enable the Commission to carry out its regulatory oversight responsibilities with respect to BSE and the BOX facility.
The Commission believes that the terms of the LLCOA provide the Commission and BSE with sufficient regulatory jurisdiction over the controlling parties and other unitholders of BOX LLC to carry out their responsibilities under the Act. In Section 19.6(a), each unitholder of BOX LLC acknowledges that—to the extent that they are related to BOX activities—the books, records, premises, officers, directors, agents, and employees of the unitholder are deemed to be the books, records, premises, officers, directors, agents, and employees of BSE itself for the purpose of and subject to oversight pursuant to the Act. Moreover, in Sections 12.1 and 15 of the LLOCA, all of the BOX LLC unitholders acknowledge that the books, records, premises, officers, directors, agents, and employees of BOX are deemed to be the books, records, premises, officers, directors, agents, and employees of BSE for the purpose of and subject to oversight pursuant to the Act. These provisions would enable the Commission to exercise its authority under Section 19(h)(4) of the Act
In addition, in Section 19.6(b) of the LLCOA, each unitholder—and each officer, director, agent, and employee thereof—irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. federal courts, the Commission, and BSE for the purposes of any suit, action, or proceeding pursuant to the U.S. federal securities laws and the rules or regulations thereunder, arising out of or relating to BOX activities. In addition, each unitholder—and each officer, director, agent, and employee thereof—waives, and agrees not to assert by way of motion, as a defense or otherwise in any such suit, action, or proceeding, any claim that it is not personally subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission; that the suit, action or proceeding is an inconvenient forum; that the venue of the suit, action, or proceeding is improper; or that the subject matter of the suit, action, or proceeding may not be enforced in or by such courts or agency. Moreover, pursuant to Section 19.6(c) of the LLCOA, the BSE and each unitholder are required to take such action as is necessary to ensure that such unitholder's officers, directors, and employees consent to the application of these requirements with respect to their BOX-related activities. Section 19.6(c) further requires the Bourse and the BSE to take such action as is necessary to ensure that the Bourse's officers, directors, and employees consent to the communication of their personal information to the Commission and the BSE and agree to waive the protection of such personal information that is provided by the Private Sector Privacy
The Commission also notes that, even in the absence of these provisions of the LLCOA, Section 20(a) of the Act
The Commission believes that, together, these provisions grant the Commission sufficient jurisdictional authority over the controlling parties and other unitholders of BOX LLC. Moreover, BSE is required to enforce compliance with these provisions because they are “rules of the exchange” within the meaning of Section 3(a)(27) of the Act.
The Commission believes that the restriction on voting trust agreements in Section 4.3(b) of the LLCOA is reasonable and consistent with the Act. In the absence of such a provision, unaffiliated parties could act in concert and evade the LLCOA's provisions regarding changes in control of BOX LLC.
In addition, the Commission believes that the voting collar provision that prevents a unitholder that is also a BOX Options Participant from voting any excess units of BOX LLC (
The Commission believes that a limited temporary exemption for IBG from the voting collar provision is justified and consistent with the Act. The exemption is designed to afford IBG some ability to protect its investment but also to limit the possibility that the Exchange's ability to carry out its self-regulatory responsibilities would be impaired. Under the exemption, IBG would be permitted to vote its excess units, but only with respect to a merger, consolidation, or dissolution of BOX LLC or a sale of all or substantially all of the assets of BOX LLC. This exemption is substantially similar to an exemption granted to founder members of the International Securities Exchange (“ISE”).
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendments No. 1 and 2, including whether Amendments No. 1 and 2 are consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Comments also may be submitted electronically at the following e-mail address:
By the Commission.
On July 17, 2003, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act)
The Exchange proposes to create a new, wholly-owned, options regulatory subsidiary, BOXR, and to transfer to it all of the assets and liabilities that solely support the regulation of the standardized equity options trading business of the BSE. Upon this transfer, the BSE would continue to be the self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) for BOXR and the Boston Options Exchange (“BOX”), the BSE's proposed new exchange facility for the trading of standardized equity options securities.
The BSE is a founding and controlling member of BOX LLC, and has entered into various agreements with BOX LLC under which BOX LLC would operate BOX as a facility of the BSE.
The BSE would delegate specified regulatory authority to BOXR to oversee the BOX market. BOXR would conduct all necessary surveillance of the trading effected through the BOX facility, and enforce compliance by Options Participants with the BOX Rules, applicable BSE Rules, and the federal securities laws and the rules thereunder. BOXR would have regulatory oversight authority over BOX LLC and its officers, directors, agents and employees, each of whom would be required to cooperate with BOXR in the fulfillment of its regulatory obligations.
BOXR would be operated as a Delaware limited liability company, all of the issued shares of stock of which would be owned by the BSE. Current BSE members would retain their memberships, and thus, their ownership interests in the BSE. BOXR would be governed by the Delegation Plan, the BOXR By-Laws, and applicable BSE Rules.
As discussed above, BOXR would operate as a subsidiary of the BSE, which is a national securities exchange registered under Section 6 of the Act.
Pursuant to the proposed changes to the BSE Constitution, the BSE Board would be composed of the BSE Chairman, Vice Chairman and 20 governors, one of whom would represent Options Participants to provide input on the BSE Board. This governor (“Options Participant Governor”) would be nominated by the BOXR Nominating Committee
While ultimately responsible, the BSE would delegate specific self-regulatory responsibilities to BOXR, pursuant to the proposed Delegation Plan. Specifically, BOXR would assume responsibility with respect to the options business of the Exchange for, among other things: (i) Interpreting rules governing the activities of Options Participants; (ii) determining regulatory and trading policies relating to the business activities of Options Participants; (iii) assuring compliance with BSE Rules, BOX Rules, the federal securities laws and rules thereunder; (iv) administering surveillance programs and systems for enforcing rules governing the conduct and trading activities of Options Participants on BOX; (v) examining and investigating Options Participants and their associated persons to determine if they have violated the BSE Rules, BOX Rules, the federal securities laws or the rules thereunder; (vi) administering the BOXR enforcement and disciplinary programs; (vii) determining whether applicants meet the requirements for an Options Participant; (viii) placing restrictions on the business activities of Options Participants and their associated persons consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors and the federal securities laws; (ix) proposing fees and charges; (x) overseeing the operation of the BOX trading facility; (xi) administering the Exchange's involvement in the national market system plans for options; and (xii) developing, administering and enforcing listing standards for securities traded on BOX.
While BOXR would have extensive delegated authority to regulate and oversee the options trading business, the BSE, as the SRO, would retain the ultimate responsibility for the Rules and regulations of BOX, as well as for the operation and administration of the BSE's subsidiary, BOXR. As part of its self-regulatory responsibilities, the BSE would review disciplinary decisions of BOXR, review and ratify proposed rule changes recommended by BOXR, and direct BOXR to take action that may be necessary to effectuate the purposes and functions of the Act.
Pursuant to the proposed BOXR By-Laws, the BOXR Board would consist of no fewer than seven and no more than thirteen directors, and would be composed of (i) the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of the BSE (who would be considered a member for voting purposes, but not for purposes of calculating the number of Public Directors and Options Participant Directors, as defined below); (ii) at least fifty percent Public Directors;
The BSE, as the founder and sole member, would appoint the initial BOXR Board. Subsequently, the BOXR Board would be nominated by the sitting BOXR Board, subject to the nominating procedures discussed below
The Options Participants Directors must be officers or directors of an Options Participant and must be elected by a plurality of votes cast by Options Participants, following nomination by the BOXR Nominating Committee or by petition of at least five Options Participants.
The BSE would commence BOXR operations with two committees: A BOXR Nominating Committee and a BOXR Hearing Committee, both of which would provide for Options Participant involvement in the oversight of the day-to-day operations of BOX.
a.
In addition, Options Participants would be able to submit additional nominees for each of the available positions. Independent nominations for
b.
The BOXR Chief Regulatory Officer, or his staff, would authorize the initiation of disciplinary hearings and proceedings. The BOXR Hearing Committee would conduct hearings, render decisions and impose sanctions. Decisions of the BOXR Hearing Committee would be appealable for review to the BOXR Board. Any decision of the BOXR Board subsequently would be appealable to the BSE Board, which would have discretion as to whether to hear such appeal. In addition, the BSE Board could choose to review a decision of the BOXR Board on its own motion. If the BSE Board were to not order review of a decision of the BOXR Board, or, in its discretion, were to elect not to hear an appeal of a decision of the BOXR Board, then the decision of the BOXR Board would be deemed to be the final action of the Exchange. Any decision of the BSE Board, or the BOXR Board (in cases where the BSE Board in its discretion has elected not to hear the appeal) would be ultimately appealable to the Commission. As with all BSE decisions, the Commission would have the authority to review final disciplinary sanctions imposed by BOXR or the BSE on Options Participants, including sanctions imposed for violations of BOX Rules.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission received one comment letter on the proposed rule change that strongly opposes the BSE's proposal.
The Commission believes that the BSE's proposal that BOX be operated as its facility is properly filed under Section 19(b) of the Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,
The Commission finds that the proposed changes to the composition of the BSE Board and the proposed composition of the BOXR Board are structured in a manner that satisfies the fair representation requirements of Section 6(b)(3) of the Act.
Under Section 6(b)(3) of the Act,
As discussed above, under the proposal, the BSE Board, composed of the BSE Chairman, Vice Chairman, and 20 governors, would include one governor representing Options Participants to provide input on the BSE Board. This Options Participant Governor must be presented by the BOXR Nominating Committee, and must be either an officer or director of an Options Participant.
The BSE Constitution would continue to require that the BSE Board include ten securities industry representatives, representing members of the BSE (one of whom would be the Options Participant Governor), and ten public representatives.
In its comment letter, CBOE argues that the BSE's proposal does not satisfy the statutory requirement that members must be fairly represented in the governance of a national securities exchange and in the administration of its affairs. Specifically, CBOE contends that the representation of one Options Participant on the 22-person BSE Board does not satisfy the statutory requirements of fair representation. Because Options Participants would have a voice in the administration of the affairs of the BSE, and BSE members (other than Options Participants) would continue to elect ten of 22 members on the BSE Board, the Commission believes that the proposal satisfies the fair representation requirements of Section 6(b)(3) of the Act.
Pursuant to the proposal, the BOXR Board would consist of no fewer than seven nor more than thirteen directors. The composition of the BOXR Board would be: (i) The CEO of the BSE (who would be considered a member of the Board for voting purposes, but not for purposes of calculating the number of Public Directors and Options Participant Directors); (ii) at least fifty percent Public Directors;
a.
Moreover, Options Participants have an additional opportunity to nominate other candidates. Specifically, five Options Participants may petition to add a nominee to be included on the ballot.
In its comment letter, CBOE argues that because the BSE Board would appoint the BOXR Board, Options Participants would not have the right to choose which Options Participants serve on the BOXR Board, in violation of the fair representation requirements of the Act.
Furthermore, the proposed composition of the BOXR Board would provide Options Participant representation comparable to that provided to members of PCX Equities, Inc. (“PCXE”) and the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”), both of which the Commission found consistent with the Act.
b.
Although the BSE has delegated certain regulatory authority over BOX to BOXR, and certain operational authority over BOX to BOX LLC, the BSE, as the SRO, retains the ultimate responsibility for the operation, administration, rules, and regulation of BOX, BOXR, and BOX LLC. Pursuant to the proposed BSE Rules, the BSE must approve any proposed changes to the BOXR By-Laws and the BOX Rules, and such proposed changes must be filed by the BSE with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act
Furthermore, pursuant to the proposed Delegation Plan, the Commission would have oversight over the premises, personnel, and records of BOXR and BOX LLC to the same extent that it currently has oversight over the premises, personnel, and records of the BSE. The books, records, premises, officers, directors, agents and employees of BOXR and BOX LLC would be deemed to be the books, records, premises, officers, directors, agents and employees of the BSE for purposes of, and subject to, oversight pursuant to the Act.
The Commission believes that neither Amendment No. 2 nor Amendment No. 3 significantly alters the original proposal, which was subject to a full notice and comment period, or raises any novel issue of regulatory concern. Moreover, the Commission believes that the changes made to the BSE Rules and the BOXR By-Laws strengthen and clarify the proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning Amendment No. 2 and Amendment No. 3, including whether the proposed amendments are consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Comments may also be submitted electronically at the following e-mail address:
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
By the Commission.
On November 14, 2003, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
In conjunction with its proposal to operate a new options facility—BOX—the BSE proposes a fee schedule relating to the BOX market.
The BSE proposes to establish trading fees related to the BOX market. The fees would apply to Public Customers,
Executions of Public Customer orders would not be subject to a trading fee. Executions of orders for broker-dealer proprietary accounts and BOX Market Maker accounts would be charged a $0.20 per contract trade execution fee, or a $0.40 per contract fee for trades against an order that BOX's automatic trading system (“Trading Host”) filters to prevent trading through the NBBO, pursuant to the NBBO filter procedures set forth in Chapter V, Section 16(b) of the BOX Rules. The BSE proposes to assess the $0.40 per contract fee to Market Makers as an incentive for Market Makers to post competitive quotations, and to broker-dealers for the cost of providing a service that is not available to broker-dealers on other exchanges. In addition, executions on behalf of broker-dealer proprietary accounts and BOX Market Maker accounts would be charged any passed-through licensing fees for Exchange Traded Funds (“ETFs”), if applicable. At BOX's launch, the only applicable surcharge on ETFs would be a $0.10 per contract fee for options on the Nasdaq 100 (“QQQ”).
The pricing model proposed for Market Makers includes a Minimum Activity Charge (“MAC”) for each class to which a Market Maker is appointed. The MAC would vary depending on the total trading volume across all options exchanges, as determined by the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) clearing data,
The MAC would not be applied during the first three calendar months following BOX's launch. Subsequently, the MAC would be “indexed” to BOX's overall market share as determined by OCC clearing volumes. Specifically, at the beginning of each calendar month, BOX would calculate its market share for the previous month (market share equals the total BOX traded volume divided by the total OCC cleared volume for the classes that BOX has listed). If BOX's overall market share is less than 10%, BOX would reduce the MAC applicable to each Market Maker as follows: (1) If BOX's market share were less than 5%, the MAC would be 33.3% of the full MAC; and (2) if BOX's market share were between 5% and 10%, the MAC would be 66.7% of the full MAC.
The Exchange would provide certain volume discounts if a Market Maker's average daily volume in a given month exceeds certain thresholds.
The Exchange is proposing on a pilot basis, until January 31, 2004,
The BSE also proposes to charge a monthly compliance assessment of $1,500 for firms for which the BSE assumes examination responsibilities under the inter-exchange allocation process of the Revised Options-related Sales Practice 17d-2 Plan (“17d-2 Plan”),
The BSE would charge fees relating to BOX's Points of Presence (“PoP”), the sites where BOX Participants connect to the BOX network for communication with the BOX Trading Host. Each of these PoPs is operated by a third party supplier under contract to BOX. Through connection fees, BOX would recover the fees charged by each PoP contractor for the use of the facility by a BOX Participant. The amount to be paid by each BOX Participant is variable based on its particular configuration, the determining factors would be the number of physical connections a BOX Participant has and the associated bandwidth.
Additionally, BSE proposes fees relating to certain installation and hosting costs, which are related to the physical installation of equipment (generally routers, though possibly other hardware) at the PoP site. BOX Participants would be required to pay this fee only if they have physical installations at the BOX PoP for which BOX incurs fees from its service suppliers.
BSE also proposes to charge a “Cross Connect” fee per physical connection, which varies by size from the smallest (T-1) to the largest (CAT 5).
BSE proposes a fee for Common Message Switch (“CMS”) Order Routing Services offered as an alternative to the FIX protocol and proprietary gateways to the BOX Trading Host. The CMS Gateway is an optional service provided by BOX to those BOX Participants who use the CMS protocol for routing orders. CMS may be used only for agency activities (and not proprietary orders and market maker activities).
BSE also proposes a fee for the use of its Back Office Trade Management Software (“TMS”), an optional software, which BOX Participants may subscribe to in order to manage their BOX trades prior to their transmission by BOX to OCC. TMS is useful only to BOX Participants acting as agent for public customers or other broker-dealer accounts. If a firm is able to include all relevant clearing data on an order prior to sending it to BOX, this software is not required since the order entry formats of BOX messages allow the BOX Participant to achieve straight through processing.
Finally, BSE proposes a fee for testing and support for third party service providers. Third party service providers, generally either Independent Software Vendors (“ISVs”), who provide “front end” trading software systems, or service bureaus, which provide and operate order routing systems for broker-dealers, may connect to the BOX Trading Host test platform. This connection is used by third party service providers both to establish initial compatibility of their software as well as to maintain this connectivity as the BOX Trading Host implements upgrades and evolutions. This fee would be charged directly to the third party service provider, not the BOX Participant, and would not be charged to BOX Participants who connect their proprietary software systems to the BOX Trading Host.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange
The Commission believes that the base trading fees charged to the constituents of the BOX market are reasonable, particularly in light of the trading fees charged by other options exchanges. In addition, the per contract trading fees are the same for all broker-dealers and Market Makers. Moreover, the $0.40 per contract fee for the execution against the exposure of an order that BOX's Trading Host filters against the NBBO is reasonable as BSE represents that it would be levied against broker-dealers to recover the cost of providing a service, and against Market Makers as an incentive to post competitive quotations.
The Commission believes that the proposed MAC that would be charged if a Market Maker's monthly trading activity were below a certain threshold is reasonable. The Commission notes that the BSE has based the MAC on its evaluation of data from the OCC and plans to review the MAC categories at least twice a year. Even if a BOX Market Maker were to trade a number of contracts less than that required to avoid paying the MAC, the per contract costs associated with trading on BOX would still be comparable to charges imposed by other exchanges.
The Commission also finds that the other fees proposed by BOX are reasonable. The InterMarket Linkage fees proposed by BOX are generally consistent with those charged by the other options exchanges. The monthly compliance assessment for firms for which BSE assumes examination responsibilities is based on the regulatory services that BSE will provide and is consistent with the regulatory fees charged by other exchanges. Finally, the technology fees assessed by BOX are based on the BOX participants' usage of the services
By the Commission.
On October 31, 2002, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE” or “Exchange”), submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Commission received 43 comment letters in response to the January 22, 2003, notice.
In response to the comment letters, the BSE filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposal.
This order approves the BSE's proposed rule change, as amended, publishes notice of Amendment No. 4 to the proposed rule change, and grants accelerated approval to Amendment No. 4.
After careful review of the proposal and consideration of the comment letters, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change to establish trading rules for the BOX facility is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of section 6 of the Act.
Overall, the Commission believes that approving the BSE's proposal to establish trading rules for the BOX facility should confer important benefits to the public and provide U.S. market participants with a new market in which to trade standardized options. As a fully electronic options market with relatively lower barriers to access,
This discussion does not review every rule and representation made by the BSE that has been filed as part of its proposed rule change; rather, it focuses on the most prominent rules and policy issues considered in review of the BSE's proposal.
The BSE proposes to establish BOX as an options trading facility of the BSE, a registered national securities exchange. BOX would be operated by Boston Options Exchange Group LLC (“BOX LLC”). One commenter objects to the characterization of BOX as a “facility” of the BSE and asserts that the Commission should require BOX to file an application to register as a national securities exchange under section 6 of the Act.
The Commission believes that the BSE's proposal to establish BOX as its facility
In addition, the Commission believes that the proposal discussed herein has provided sufficiently detailed information about the trading rules of BOX and that the public has had ample opportunity to comment on the proposal. The BSE proposal was originally published for comment in January 2003 and an amended proposal was published for further comment in August 2003. In the many months that the proposal has been in the public domain, interested persons, including other SROs, broker-dealers, investors, and other market participants have submitted comments on the proposal.
A couple of commenters request that BOX disclose fully the relationship of the founding members and investors of BOX LLC, including their role in the market and governance, and agreements between and among the members and investors or other parties providing critical services to BOX.
The Commission further notes that, as a registered exchange, the BSE is required to file an amendment to its Form 1 to reflect the agreements relating to the operation of BOX and BOXR, including a description of its affiliations with other parties, information describing the reporting, clearance, or settlement of transactions in connection with the operation of the facility, and a copy of existing by-laws or corresponding rules and instruments.
Unlike the existing options exchanges, which have a specialist or primary market maker driven system, BOX would have only one category of members, known as “Options Participants.”
Among other things, Options Participants must be registered as broker-dealers pursuant to the Act and have as the principal purpose of being an Options Participant the conduct of a securities business.
OFPs would be those Options Participants representing Customer Orders
One commenter expresses concern that BOX's proposal lacks a provision prohibiting an OFP (non-Market Maker) from entering multiple two-sided bids and offers into the system, as principal or agent for the account of the same beneficial owner, in such a manner that the participant or owner is effectively operating as a Market Maker.
BOX Market Makers are Options Participants registered with the Exchange as Market Makers and approved by BOXR
i. Market Maker Qualifications. To become a Market Maker on BOX, an Options Participant is required to register as a BOX Market Maker by filing a written application with BOXR.
In addition to registering as a Market Maker, a Market Maker must obtain an appointment in each options class in which it wishes to make a market on BOX. In approving the Market Maker's appointment in a class, BOXR would consider, among other things: (i) The financial and technical resources available to the Market Maker; (ii) the Market Maker's experience, expertise, and past performances in making markets or options trading; and (iii) the maintenance and enhancement of competition among Market Makers in each class of options to which it is appointed.
BOXR may appoint each Market Maker to any options class listed on BOX for trading. Such an appointment would consist of at least one class and may include all classes traded on the Exchange.
However, BOXR would not require a Market Maker in a class to continue trading in that class if BOXR makes an affirmative determination that continued trading in that class by a single Market Maker is to the detriment of that Market Maker, of no adverse consequence to an existing Customer of BOX or an Options Participant, and serves no greater purpose in the fair and orderly functioning of the marketplace.
BOXR may suspend or terminate any appointment of a Market Maker, make additional appointments, or change the options classes included in a Market Maker's appointment whenever, in BOXR's judgment, the interests of a fair and orderly market are best served by such action.
The Commission finds that the BOX's Market Maker qualification requirements are consistent with the Act, and notes that they are similar to those adopted by other options exchanges.
ii. Market Maker obligations. Market Makers on BOX would be required to electronically engage in a course of dealing for their own account to enhance liquidity available on BOX and
Market Makers receive certain benefits for carrying out their duties. For example, a lender may extend credit to a broker-dealer without regard to the restrictions in Regulation T of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System if the credit is to be used to finance the broker-dealer's activities as a specialist or market maker on a national securities exchange.
One commenter states that the quoting obligations of Market Makers were vague in that there could be no quote in the BOX market for an extended period of time.
There are three types of orders that may be submitted to the BOX Trading Host: a Limit Order, a Box-Top Order, and a Market-on-Opening Order.
i. Order Types. Limit Orders entered into the BOX Book are executed at the stated limit price or better. Any residual volume left after part of a Limit Order has traded is retained in the BOX Book until it is withdrawn or traded (unless a specific designation is added which prevents the untraded part of a Limit Order from being retained). The BOX Trading Host will automatically withdraw all Limit Orders, except for those with a Good “Til Cancelled (“GTC”) designation, at market close.
Market-on-Opening Orders entered into the BOX Book are executed on the market opening at the best price available in the market until all available volume on the opposite side of the market has been traded. Any residual volume left after part of a Market-on-Opening Order has been executed is automatically converted to a Limit Order at the price at which the original Market-on-Opening Order was executed. Market-on-Opening Orders have priority over Limit Orders.
BOX-Top Orders entered into the BOX Book are executed at the best price available in the market for the total quantity available. Any residual volume left after part of a BOX-Top Order has been executed is automatically converted to a Limit Order at the price at which the original BOX-Top Order was executed.
One commenter suggests that BOX-Top Orders should continue through the price discovery process instead of being converted to a Limit Order after being partially executed. In addition, this commenter raises a concern that if a BOX-Top Order is converted to a Limit Order and the market moves away from the limit price, the proposal does not specify whether the BOX system would update the order price to the next limit or whether it would remain at the initial limit price. This commenter believes that if the order remains at the initial limit price, it would be negatively impacted.
The Commission believes that the proposal clearly specifies the procedures regarding the handling of BOX-Top orders. Unlike market orders that trade at successive price levels, BOX-Top Orders would execute at the best price available in the market for the total quantity available from any contra side order. Any remaining volume would be automatically converted to a Limit Order at the price that the original BOX-Top Order was executed. This limit price would not change due to market fluctuations. Thus, the Commission does not believe any clarification is necessary regarding BOX-Top Orders. The Commission also believes that brokers who send a Customer's order to BOX as a BOX-Top Order must be sure that such an order type is consistent with that Customer's expectations.
Among several designations that can be added to BOX-Top or Limit Orders
One commenter queries how MV orders would be represented, which Options Participants would be able to view them, and how they might be traded-through when the minimum volume cannot be satisfied.
The BOX Book is the electronic book of orders maintained by the BOX Trading Host. The BOX Book contains all orders of Options Participants. Limit Orders of Options Participants submitted to BOX would be ranked and maintained in the BOX Book according to price/time priority, such that within each price level, all orders would be organized by the time of entry.
Trades would occur when orders or quotations match on the BOX Book. Orders at the same price would have priority based on the time of order entry, as described above.
One commenter expressed concern that BOX participants might have the ability to see market information via BOX's internal network on a timelier basis than that information would be provided to OPRA. In particular, the commenter claims that BOX's marketing documents suggest that BOX Options Participants would have faster access to BOX market information than OPRA.
The BOX market will conduct a single price opening. Orders may be submitted, modified, and cancelled throughout a pre-opening phase preceding the commencement of trading on the market. During this pre-opening phase, Customers may submit only Market-on-Opening or Limit Orders. BOX would calculate a theoretical opening price and broadcast it to all BOX market participants through the pre-opening phase.
If the BOX market is crossed (bids higher than offers) at the market open, BOX would determine the price at which the maximum volume can be traded and automatically execute trades accordingly, pursuant to BOX Rules, Chapter V, Sec. 9 (Opening the Market).
One commenter asks that BOX clarify how it intends to treat the opening of trading of Market-on-Opening Orders on BOX. This commenter suggests that the use of Market-on-Opening Orders in the opening process seems to imply that BOX would trade at multiple prices during the opening.
However, the Commission believes that the proposed rules do not sufficiently describe the procedures for determining the single opening price for an options series on the BOX market. Accordingly, the Commission's approval of the proposed rule change is on the condition that the proposed rule change is not effective until a proposed rule change to amend the BOX Rules to provide a more detailed description of the market opening procedures becomes
Rule 11Ac1-1 under the Act, known as the “Quote Rule,” requires, among other things, that exchanges collect, process, and make available to quotation vendors the best bids and offers which are communicated on the exchange.
The Commission believes that the proposed rule is consistent with the Act and the Quote Rule, and notes that the BSE is required to enforce compliance by its members with the Federal securities laws and the BOX Rules.
A Complex Order is any order for the same account, that is composed of two or more related orders intended to be executed concurrently as part of a single investment strategy, including, among other things, combination orders with non-equity options legs.
One commenter raises the following questions with respect to Complex Orders: (i) Is there a Complex Order Book; (ii) how will Options Participants know of Complex Orders; (iii) will Complex Orders be separately disseminated; (iv) are OFPs required to monitor and execute complex orders like Public Customer PIP Orders (“CPOs”); and (v) does BOX plan to provide separate Exchange staff to monitor Complex Orders and the Complex Order Book?
In Amendment No. 4, the BSE provides further explanation in response to the commenter's questions. The BSE states that there would be a Complex Order Book on BOX, and that BSE's proposal regarding Complex Orders is consistent with the current trading of Complex Orders by the existing options exchanges.
The BSE further represents that Complex Orders would be submitted, modified, and cancelled like other orders on BOX.
The BSE does not plan to have separate Exchange staff to monitor Complex Orders and the Complex Order Book. The BSE believes that because of the overall integration of the BOX Trading Host, of which the Complex Order trading system is one element, the same staff which monitors the Trading Host and the BOX Book would have the appropriate resources and expertise to monitor Complex Order trading.
Another commenter asserts that the BOX provision appears contrary to price and time priority rules of other options exchanges because an options leg of a transaction would take priority over other orders at the same price.
A third commenter questions whether Complex Orders would interact in the PIP.
The Commission believes that the modifications proposed by the BSE in Amendment No. 4 clarify the priority of Complex Orders relative to the Limit Orders of Customers. Specifically, the BSE's modified proposal is now consistent with the rules of other exchanges, regarding the priority of Complex Orders with multiple options legs. Unlike the other options exchanges, the BSE proposes not to provide Public Customer Orders with priority over Complex Orders at the same price, unless such Public Customer Order had time priority. Despite this difference, the Commission finds the proposed BOX Rules relating to Complex Orders to be consistent with the Act.
The BSE proposes to permit BOXR to either break a transaction or adjust the execution price of a transaction that results from an obvious error. Under the proposed rule, an obvious error would be deemed to have occurred when the execution price of a transaction is higher or lower than the theoretical price for the series by an amount equal to at least: $.25 where the theoretical price is below $2; $.40 where the theoretical price is $2-$5; $.50 where the theoretical price is above $5-$10; $.80 where the theoretical price is above $10-$20; and $1.00 where the theoretical price is above $20.
One commenter suggests that BOX should define what it means when it refers to the exchange with the “most liquidity” under the obvious error rule.
The Commission believes 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 may be unrealistic to conclude 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 BSE'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. The Commission further notes that several provisions of the BOX obvious error rule are substantially the same as the obvious error rule of another options exchange, which was recently approved by the Commission.
As originally proposed, the BOX Rules did not contain any provisions with regard to cabinet trades (also known as accommodation liquidations), generally transacted at the expiration of worthless options for tax purposes. One commenter suggests that the BOX proposal should include provisions relating to cabinet trading and how the BSE intends to regulate cabinet trading.
In response, the BSE proposes, in Amendment No. 4, to permit cabinet trading in each series of options contracts open for trading on BOX.
The BSE has not proposed a rule that would prohibit what is known as “anticipatory hedging.” All of the options exchanges have anticipatory hedging rules, which generally prohibit a member that has knowledge of all material terms of a solicited order, an order being facilitated, or orders being crossed, the execution of which is imminent, from buying or selling (1) an option on the same underlying security as the option that is the subject of the order, (2) the underlying security itself, or (3) any related instrument until either the terms of the order are disclosed to the trading crowd or the options order can no longer be considered imminent in view of the passage of time since the order was received.
All in-bound agency orders to BOX (whether on behalf of Customers, non-BOX Participant broker-dealer proprietary accounts or market makers at other exchanges) as well as inbound Principal (“P”) and Principal as Agent (“P/A”) orders received via the intermarket linkage
Where the best price on the BOX Book on the opposite side of the market from the BOX-Top Order is equal to the NBBO, the BOX-Top Order would be executed for all the quantity available on the BOX Book at this price. Any remaining quantity would be converted to a Limit Order at this execution price and filtered as described in steps 2 through 4 below.
If the best bid (offer) disseminated by BOX were not equal to the NBBO, the BOX-Top Order to sell (buy) would be converted to a Limit Order for its total quantity at a price equal to the NBBO and filtered as described in steps 2 through 4 below.
With respect to P and P/A Orders in which the size of a P/A Order is larger than the Firm Customer Quote Size or the size of a P Order is larger than the Firm Principal Quote Size, and any quantity remains after trading against the BOX quote at the NBBO, then such remaining quantity would be exposed on the BOX Book at the price the order was partially executed for a period of three seconds. During the exposure period, any Options Participant may trade with the order. Any quantity remaining on the BOX Book after the three-second exposure period would be cancelled. BOX would inform the sending Participant exchange of the amount of the order that was executed and the amount, if any, cancelled.
If there were not a quote on BOX that is equal to the NBBO, then the order, unless such order is a P or P/A Order, would be exposed on the BOX Book at the NBBO for a period of three seconds. During the exposure period, any Options Participant may trade with the order. If the order were not executed during the three-second exposure period, then the order would be handled by BOX pursuant to Step 4 below.
(1) If the best BOX price were now equal to the NBBO, the remaining unexecuted quantity would immediately trade with that quote or order. Any remaining quantity would be (i) in the case of a Public Customer Order, sent as a P/A Order to an exchange displaying the NBBO; or (ii) in the case of a market maker or proprietary broker-dealer order, returned to the submitting Options Participant;
(2) If the best BOX price is not equal to the NBBO, then any remaining unexecuted quantity would be (i) in the case of a Public Customer Order, sent as a P/A Order to an exchange displaying the NBBO; or (ii) in the case of a market maker or proprietary broker-dealer order, returned to the submitting Options Participant.
One commenter asks for more clarity regarding which BOX participants will be able to view the internal message disseminating the in-bound order in the BOX filter.
The Commission believes that the proposed rules regarding the NBBO filter process are in accordance with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
Under BSE's proposal, a “Directed Order” refers to a Customer Order that an OFP directs to a particular Market Maker.
A Market Maker receiving a Directed Order would have to, within three seconds of receipt of the order, either submit the Directed Order to the PIP, discussed below,
First, the Market Maker sending the Directed Order to the BOX Book would be prohibited for three seconds from submitting to BOX a contra order to the Directed Order for its proprietary account.
Second, if the Market Maker's quotation on the opposite side of the market from the Directed Order is not equal to the NBBO, immediately upon the submission of the Directed Order to BOX, the Trading Host would determine if the Directed Order is executable against the NBBO according to the NBBO filter process discussed above.
Third, if the Directed Order were not executable against the NBBO, it would be placed on the BOX Book to be treated as any other order.
Some commenters argue that the Directed Order process amounts to preferencing or internalization by the Market Makers, which would threaten market integrity.
The Commission believes, however, that the proposed restrictions on Market Makers receiving Directed Orders described above should limit the Market Maker's ability to internalize these orders without undermining competitive markets. In particular, the Commission believes that the Directed Order process will not jeopardize market integrity or the incentive for market participants to post competitive quotes because Market Makers receiving Directed Orders must accept all orders directed to them and must send such orders only to the PIP or to the BOX Book, and because a Market Maker is prohibited from interacting with a Directed Order it receives for three seconds, regardless of the price at which the Market Maker was quoting when the Directed Order was received.
One commenter suggests that the BSE's proposal would penalize Market Makers that quote at the NBBO because, if the Market Maker that receives the Directed Order were quoting at the NBBO at the time it receives the Directed Order, it would be required to couple the Directed Order with a GDO, guaranteeing the execution of the Directed Order at the then-current NBBO for at least the size of the Market Maker's quotation.
The Commission, however, does not believe that it is necessary for these restrictions to be included in the BOX Rules to be consistent with the Act. In response to the other comments raised by this commenter, the BSE has changed its proposal to clarify that a Market Maker, who receives a Directed Order when not quoting at the NBBO, as well as when quoting at the NBBO, would have to wait three seconds before trading with the Directed Order.
Currently, the rules of several of the SROs impose certain restrictions on the business activities of a member or member organization that is affiliated with a specialist or member organization. The requirements in the BOX Rules regarding Directed Orders are intended to address any concerns regarding informational barriers and the transfer of information (intended or not) between Options Participants. To this effect, as noted above, under the BOX Rules, a BOX Market Maker who decides to accept Directed Orders, must agree to accept them from all sources. Upon receipt of a Directed Order, a Market Maker has only two choices—either submit the order into the PIP, or send the order back to the BOX Book.
The BSE has proposed a number of safeguards designed to limit the disclosure of market information, the description of which follows in section II.E. These proposed measures should help to ensure that information is not used inappropriately for the benefit of the Market Maker receiving the Directed Order.
Following the widespread multiple listing of options in the fall of 1999, a number of broker-dealers handling customer orders pressured the options exchanges to allow them to trade with their customer orders. In addition, some specialists began paying broker-dealers to send them their customer orders, and sought greater guarantees that specialists could trade with these and other orders. In response to these pressures, member firms have been given increased opportunities (both by exchange rule and floor practice) to trade with (or internalize) the customer orders they bring to an exchange. While all of these practices were a response to greater competition between markets, they also raise structural issues because of their potential to decrease quote competition. As more customer orders are retained by a specialist or the firm that brought the order to the exchange, and therefore are unavailable to other members who are competing for orders based on price, these other members could have less incentive to compete by offering better prices on an exchange, and price competition may suffer. Eventually, if particular exchange members lock up too great a share of customer orders, the number of competing market makers within the market could diminish, and with them, active or potential intramarket price competition.
As a result, the disseminated quotations, and the prices available on a market, could deteriorate'ultimately harming investors. Moreover, because a firm can profit by internalizing its customers' orders while matching the best displayed quotes, rules that guarantee firms a right to trade with some or all of their own customers' orders may interfere with a broker-dealer seeking better prices that might be available in the market. For this reason, the Commission has closely scrutinized proposals by exchanges to guarantee specialists a proportion of orders traded on an exchange
Several commenters express concern that the BOX proposal would encourage internalization
As the options markets began to more aggressively list multiply list the most active options, the options exchanges adopted rules that allowed upstairs firms more rights to participate in certain customer orders they bring to the exchanges. For example, the ISE adopted a rule that permits upstairs firms to interact as principal with up to 40% of orders of 50 contracts or more that the firm presents to the exchange after an auction and other conditions are satisfied.
In response to the ISE's “facilitation” rule, each of the other options exchanges adopted similar rules.
The BOX Rules provide for an auction process, known as the PIP, which can be used by Options Participants seeking to execute their agency orders as principal. With certain exceptions, an Options Participant is not otherwise permitted to trade with its agency orders.
The PIP features these key aspects:
• An Options Participant may submit any size Customer Order
• Market Makers assigned to the class, Options Participants with proprietary orders at the BOX inside bid or offer for the particular series (“PPOs”),
• The trade is allocated based on price and time priority at the end of the PIP, with certain exceptions. Specifically, Public Customer Orders and non-BOX Participant broker-dealer orders would have priority over any order of an OFP at the same price. In addition, Public Customer Orders would have priority over an unmodified Primary Improvement Order for the account of a Market Maker at the same price, and would have priority over a modified Primary Improvement Order for the account of a Market Maker that matches such Public Customer Orders.
• Because the execution of the Customer Order is guaranteed at the start of the PIP, the Customer Order has priority over all other orders on its side of the market that are entered on the BOX Book during the PIP.
The Commission finds that the PIP, as part of the BOX facility, is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act. In general, the Commission believes that the proposed BOX Rules provide comparable limitations on internalization as the other exchange's rules that guarantee members the right to internalize their customers' orders. In particular, the BSE's proposal would require a firm to expose its customer order in the PIP before trading with that order.
As discussed below, the Commission believes that the three-second electronic auction proposed by the BSE should provide sufficient time for an electronic crowd to compete for a Customer Order. Moreover, the Commission believes that the access to the PIP by those who may wish to compete for a Customer Order is sufficient to provide opportunities for a meaningful, competitive auction. In fact, the Commission believes, as discussed below, that the BSE's proposal provides an opportunity for a
There must be at least three Market Makers quoting in a relevant series at the time an Options Participant submits its Customer Order and Primary Improvement Order to initiate a PIP.
The BSE proposes that the duration of each PIP be 3 seconds, unless it concludes sooner due to the receipt on BOX of an unrelated order on the same side of the market as the Customer Order (such that it would cause an execution to occur).
Some commenters criticize the proposed time period of the auction, arguing that the three-second PIP would favor highly capitalized firms with faster technology over smaller market participants.
The Commission believes that a three-second PIP should afford electronic crowds sufficient time to compete for Customer Orders submitted by an Options Participant. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission believes that the timeframes necessary for exposure and execution of orders be adjudged in light of the BOX market structure. The Commission believes that the critical issue is determining whether the three-second timeframe gives participants in a fully automated marketplace sufficient time to respond to a PIP broadcast to compete and provide price improvement for Customer Orders, and that electronic systems are available to BOX Options Participants that would allow them to respond to PIP broadcasts in a meaningful way within the proposed timeframe. The Commission notes that Market Makers and OFPs can either develop their own software to manage trading on BOX, or utilize one of the many front-end solutions that have been written to connect with electronic-based exchanges. All Options Participants should have the opportunity to develop or avail themselves of such systems, and although these automated systems will entail additional costs, the markets for derivative products are by their nature automation-intensive, and require a higher capital base than for other simpler financial products.
With respect to the comments that BSE's proposal would permit greater internalization due to the relatively short duration of the PIP, the Commission believes that the ability of Market Makers and other Options Participants on BOX to electronically monitor for PIP broadcasts, and to program competitive responses based on pre-set parameters, should provide a fair opportunity and incentive to compete for Customer Orders submitted to the PIP. Moreover, the Commission believes that one important difference between the BSE's proposed PIP and floor-based markets is that the BOX Options Participants do not know the identity of the Options Participant that submitted the Customer Order to the PIP. Accordingly, like the ISE's Facilitation Mechanism, the automated, non-personal nature of BOX's PIP provides no opportunity for agreements between the facilitating firm and the trading crowd whereby, for example, the trading crowd agrees not to break up a firm's proposed facilitation in exchange for that firm's agreement to bring order flow to the exchange.
In addition to the Options Participant that submitted the Customer Order and Primary Improvement Order, all Market Makers assigned to a class would be permitted to compete in penny increments for orders in that class entered into a PIP.
i. Customer PIP Order. Public Customers may participate in a PIP through the use of CPOs.
One commenter believes that the CPO procedures would not provide significant opportunities for Public Customer participation in PIP auctions because, while Market Makers would be able to decide at the time a PIP commences whether to compete, Public Customers would have to make that determination in advance.
Another commenter points out that the OFP may but is not required to submit a CPO to the PIP and surmised that, as a result, BOX could not guarantee customer access to the PIP.
The Commission believes that permitting Public Customer Orders to participate in the PIP through the use of CPOs is an adequate means of Public Customer access to the PIP. The Commission also believes that an OFP need not be required to submit a CPO to the PIP. In this regard, the Commission notes that none of the current options exchanges' rules obligate their members to bring agency orders to an auction, but give them the discretion about how best to execute their customers' orders.
ii. PIP Proprietary Order (“PPO”). In response to concerns regarding access to the PIP auction, the BSE, in Amendment No. 4, proposes also to permit Options Participants to submit proprietary orders in penny increments into the PIP (“PPO”). Options Participants may enter a PPO for their proprietary accounts, provided that, at the commencement of the PIP, they already have a proprietary order or quote on the BOX Book at the inside bid or offer.
The Commission believes that this change should allow for greater competition in the PIP auction and should, therefore, benefit Customers by providing them with greater opportunities for better prices. The Commission notes that the BSE's proposal is similar to the rules of other options exchanges, including the ISE's facilitation mechanism in which members with proprietary orders at the inside bid or offer for a particular series can participate in the facilitation mechanism.
iii. Unrelated Orders. Under the BSE's proposal, unrelated orders could compete in standard increments to trade with the Customer Order in the PIP. Such unrelated orders could include agency orders on behalf of Public Customers, market makers on other exchanges, and non-BOX Options Participant broker-dealers, as well as non-PPO orders submitted by Options Participants.
As discussed above, during the PIP, Market Makers may submit Improvement Orders for those classes within their appointment. Improvement Orders would be submitted in penny increments and are valid only in the PIP process.
Several commenters argue that permitting penny increments in the PIP is likely to save the internalizing firm money while bringing little price improvement to customers. Specifically, commenters criticize the BSE proposal that an OFP would need to offer only penny price improvement in the PIP to internalize the order, while on other exchanges, the internalizing firm would have to offer improvement in standard
The Commission believes that, because the PIP is designed to guarantee Customers a price at least a penny better than the NBBO, Customer Orders should benefit. At this point, the Commission has no reason to believe that the PIP auction would not be active and competitive.
With respect to the commenter's prediction that Commission approval of the BOX market, with its PIP auction, would result in quoting in pennies by all markets, the Commission does not believe this to be a foregone conclusion. The PIP uses pennies in an auction, not in public quotations. Given the implications of penny quoting for OPRA, penny quoting would require very careful review by the Commission. Moreover, the approval of any proposed rule change is based upon the Commission's determination that the proposal is consistent with the Act, not that the proposal mimics one feature of the market structure of a competing exchange.
At the conclusion of the PIP, the Customer Order would be matched against the best priced orders, whether Improvement Orders, or orders unrelated to the PIP that were received by BOX during the PIP process.
• The Options Participant who submitted the Customer Order into the PIP would have priority for 40% of the Customer Order, and would be allocated additional contracts only after all other competing orders have been filled at that price level.
• After the Options Participant who submitted the Customer Order to the PIP receives its allocation, a Market Maker designated as the Market Maker Prime
• All non-Market Maker Options Participants, including an Options Participant that submitted the Customer Order to the PIP, would yield priority to non-BOX member orders.
i. Trade Participation Right. The Commission finds that the BSE's proposal to grant participation rights, under certain conditions, to the Options Participant that submitted a Customer Order to the PIP is reasonable and consistent with the Act. As discussed previously, the Commission is concerned that proposals by options exchanges that guarantee a significant portion of orders to any market participant could erode the incentive to display aggressively priced quotes.
It is difficult to assess the precise level at which guarantees may begin to erode competitive market maker participation and potential price competition within a given market. In the future, after the Commission has studied the impact of guarantees, the Commission may need to reassess the level of these guarantees. For the immediate term, the Commission believes that 40% is not clearly inconsistent with the statutory standards of competition and free and open markets.
The Commission believes that the BSE's proposal, which entitles (subject to certain exceptions) an Options Participant who submits the Primary Improvement Order to 40% of the Customer Order, is not inconsistent with the Act.
The Commission believes that the BSE Rules should promote price competition within BOX by providing Options Participants with a reasonable opportunity to compete for a significant percentage of the incoming order and, therefore, should protect investors and the public interest. For the immediate term, the Commission continues to believe that a 40% allocation is consistent with the statutory standards for competition and free and open markets.
ii. Market Maker Prime The BSE's proposal would give priority to a Market Maker designated as a Market Maker Prime over other competing orders in the PIP. This priority is designed to provide an incentive for Market Makers to quote aggressively. A couple of commenters state that it is unfair that a Market Maker Prime has priority in the PIP, while CPOs also at the NBBO at the start of the PIP do not.
iii. Section 11(a) of the Act. Section 11(a) of the Exchange Act
One commenter asserts that the lack of customer priority on BOX is inconsistent with section 11(a) of the Act with regard to OFPs.
In response to the commenter's concerns, the BSE proposes to amend its proposal to prohibit any orders for the accounts of non-Marker Maker Options Participants to be executed prior to the execution of Public Customer Orders, both CPO and unrelated Customer Orders, and non-BOX-Participant broker-dealer orders at the same price.
iv. Section 11(b) of the Act. Section 11(b) of the Act
One commenter asserts that the BSE's proposal to provide a BOX Marker Maker that submits a Directed Order to the PIP, and is at the best price at the conclusion of the PIP, with an allocation of 40% of the Directed Order ahead of Customer Orders at that price, would be inconsistent with a specialist's negative obligations as required by Rule 11b-1 under of the Act.
As described above, an OFP or Market Maker that submits a Customer Order to the PIP will be allocated 40% of that order, if at the end of the PIP, its Primary Improvement Order is at the best price and it was first in time at that price.
Under the BSE's proposal, Customer Orders submitted to the PIP and the responding Improvement Orders would not be displayed or disseminated outside the BOX market. Several commenters argue that the PIP lacks transparency and amounts to a shadow or hidden market, in violation of the Commission's Quote Rule.
In addition, another commenter argues that the PIP would violate the Quote Rule
As stated above, the Commission believes that one of the principal differences between the BSE's proposed PIP and other exchanges' rules that guarantee members the right to trade with their customer orders is that the BOX PIP would be available for orders of fewer than 50 contracts. Under the BSE's proposal, BOX would have no minimum size requirement for orders entered into the PIP, for a pilot period to extend eighteen months from the day trading commences on BOX.
One commenter objects to the inclusion of orders of fewer than 50 contracts into the PIP,
The Commission believes, however, that the BSE's proposal provides small customer orders with benefits not available under the rules of other exchanges, and is consistent with the Act. In particular, any order entered into the PIP is guaranteed an execution at the end of the auction at a price at least a penny better than the NBBO. In addition, the Commission believes that BSE's proposal provides the opportunity for more market participants to compete. For example, the BSE has not limited the number of Market Makers assigned to each class, and would permit Public Customers and Options Participants that were not Market Makers to participate in the PIP through the use of CPOs and PPOs.
The Commission, however, understands the concern of commenters who fear that including orders of fewer than 50 contracts in the PIP may result in less competitive quotes. Therefore,
(1) The number of orders of fewer than 50 contracts entered into BOX's PIP, including the number of orders submitted by OFPs and the number of orders submitted by Market Makers;
(2) The percentage of all orders of fewer than 50 contracts sent to BOX that are entered into BOX's PIP;
(3) The percentage of all BOX trades represented by orders of fewer than 50 contracts;
(4) The percentage of all BOX trades effected through the PIP represented by orders of fewer than 50 contracts;
(5) The percentage of all contracts traded on BOX represented by orders of fewer than 50 contracts;
(6) The percentage of all contracts effected through the PIP represented by orders of fewer than 50 contracts;
(7) The spread in the option, at the time an order of fewer than 50 contracts is submitted to the PIP;
(8) Of PIP trades, the percentage done at the NBBO plus $.01, plus $.02, plus $.03,
(9) The number of orders submitted by OFPs when the spread was $.05, $.10, $.15, etc. For each spread, specify the percentage of contracts in orders of fewer than 50 contracts submitted to BOX's PIP that were traded by: (a) The OFP that submitted the order to the PIP; (b) BOX Market Makers assigned to the class; (c) PPOs (other BOX Participants who were at the BBO at the time the PIP started); (d) CPOs (customers at the BBO at the time the PIP started); and (e) unrelated orders (orders in standard increments entered during PIP); and
(10) The number of orders submitted by Market Makers when the spread was $.05, $.10, $.15,
The BOX Rules contain certain provisions restricting internalization by Options Participants outside of the PIP process, described below.
The BSE proposes to limit an Options Participant's ability to trade as principal with an order it represents as agent, unless the order is first given the opportunity to interact with other trading interest on the Exchange. Specifically, OFPs may not execute as principal an order it represents as agent unless: (i) The agency order is first exposed on the BOX Book for at least 30 seconds; (ii) the OFP has been bidding or offering on BOX for at least 30 seconds prior to receiving an agency order that is executable against such bid or offer; or (iii) the OFP submits the agency order to the PIP, described above.
The BSE proposes to prohibit the disclosure of information about agency orders to third parties. Specifically, an Options Participant, prior to submitting an order to BOX, including submitting an order to the PIP, cannot disclose to another Options Participant or any other third party of any of the terms of the order, except as provided for in the Directed Order process.
The BSE proposes, in Amendment No. 4, to require Options Participants to expose orders they represent as agent on BOX for at least thirty seconds before such orders may be executed in whole or in part by orders solicited from other Options Participants and non-member broker-dealers to transact with such orders.
Section 11(a) of the Exchange Act
In Amendment No. 4, the BSE represents that transactions effected on BOX, excluding those transactions effected through the PIP process, satisfy the conditions of Rule 11a2-2(T). Based on these representations, the Commission finds that the order execution algorithm of BOX complies with the requirements of section 11(a) of the Exchange and Rule 11a2-2(T) thereunder.
In particular, the BSE states that “BOX will place all of its participants on the ‘same footing’ ” and that “no participant will enjoy any special control over the timing of execution or special order handling advantages, as all orders will be centrally processed for execution by computer.” Specifically, orders sent to BOX will be transmitted from remote terminals directly to the system by electronic means. Once an order is submitted to BOX, the order is executed against another order based on an established matching algorithm. As the BSE explains, the execution does not depend on the Options Participant but rather upon what other orders are entered into BOX at or around the same time as the subject order, what orders are on the BOX Book and where the order is ranked based on the strict price-time priority ranking algorithm. Accordingly, Options Participants do not control or influence the result or timing of orders submitted to BOX.
Based on these representations, the Commission finds that BOX's electronic order submission and execution process satisfies the four conditions of Rule 11a2-2(T).
As discussed above, customer Limit Orders would not have priority over professional trading interest in the BOX market. Thus, if a broker-dealer sends a non-marketable Public Customer Limit Order to BOX, and professional trading interest already is on the book at the same price, the professional interest would have priority. One commenter notes that, in contrast, if the broker-dealer sends that Public Customer Order to any other options exchange, the Public Customer would have priority over any pre-existing professional interest on the book.
The Commission disagrees that a broker sending its customer orders to BOX would be
The same commenter noted that when an Options Participant initiates a PIP, it does not have to initiate the PIP at the best price it is willing to trade. Instead, the Options Participant may improve the price it is willing to offer its customer during the three-second auction in response to higher prices offered by others. The commenter argues that this is a clear violation of an Options Participant's fiduciary obligations, because an Options Participant who does not put forward its best price in initiating a PIP auction would not provide the best opportunity for price improvement to its customer. This commenter believes that there is a similar violation of fiduciary obligations when an OFP directs the order to a preferenced Marker Maker.
The Commission does not agree with the commenter's assertion that that an Options Participant's duty of best execution requires the Options Participant to submit its best price when initiating a PIP. The Primary Improvement Order is entered into the PIP at the guaranteed price, which, by definition, is at least one penny better than the best price available on any other options exchange at that time. The OFP or Marker Maker guarantees to execute its Customer's order at this price and ensures that the Customer will receive an execution at a price no worse, and possibly better, than the guaranteed price. After the order is guaranteed, the three-second auction begins. At that point, all those entitled to participate in the PIP have an equal opportunity to match or improve the guaranteed price. The OFP or Marker Maker that initiated the PIP will receive its 40% guarantee only if it is at the best price at the conclusion of the PIP auction.
Moreover, the vast majority of customer orders are executed at the disseminated NBBO in automatic execution systems on each of the floor-based options exchanges, which do not provide any opportunity for price improvement. Despite the fact that if such orders were instead directed to the exchange floors, such orders might receive price improvement, the Commission has never taken the position that best execution requires that brokers bring each and every customer order to the floor of the exchanges for the possibility of price improvement over the disseminated NBBO.
The proposed BOX Rules also contain a number of requirements to guide Options Participants that facilitate customer orders as principal towards fulfilling their best execution duty to their customers. These rules supplement the broker's best execution obligation. For example, Options Participants must ensure that when executing a Customer Order in the PIP, they act with due skill, care, and diligence, and that the interests of their Customers are not prejudiced.
In addition, certain features of the BOX PIP help ensure that Options Participants comply with their duty of best execution. For example, no Options Participant is permitted to cancel or to modify the size of its Primary Improvement Order or the Customer Order at any time during the PIP, and the Options Participant may modify the price of its Primary Improvement Order only by improving it.
BSE represents that it intends to participate in the Options Intermarket Linkage Plan (“Linkage Plan.”). In order to do so, BSE would be required to comply with the obligations of Participants under the Linkage Plan and, therefore, proposes certain rules relating to the Linkage as part of the proposed BOX Rules.
In general, the proposed BOX Rules contain relevant definitions, establish the conditions pursuant to which Market Makers may enter Linkage orders, impose obligations on the Exchange regarding how it must process incoming Linkage orders, and establish a general standard that Options Participants should avoid trade-throughs. The proposed BOX Rules establish potential regulatory liability for Options Participants who engage in a pattern or practice of trading through other exchanges, establish obligations with respect to locked and crossed markets, and restrict a market maker on an Exchange from sending principal orders (other than P/A orders, which reflect unexecuted customer orders) through the Linkage if the market maker affects less than 80 percent of specified order flow on the Exchange.
In addition to these Linkage Rules, as part of its proposed trading rules, BSE proposes several rules that affect order handling through the linkage. Further, certain of the BOX Linkage Rules are unique to BOX and thus warrant further description.
In Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change, BSE proposed rules that were intended to bring the BOX Rules into conformity with the requirements of the Linkage Plan so that BSE would be eligible to become a Participant in the Linkage Plan. Under the Linkage Plan, an “Eligible Market Maker,” defined as, among other things, a market maker who is assigned to, and provides two-sided quotations in an option class eligible for trading through the Linkage,
Two commenters express concern that the BOX's order handling process would be inconsistent with the Linkage Plan because it would permit BOX Market Makers to send orders through the Linkage with the agency responsibilities that the Linkage Plan requires for Eligible Market Makers.
To ensure that there is an Eligible Market Maker per Eligible Class (as those terms are defined in the Linkage
Further, the BIMM would be required to act with due diligence with regard to the interests of orders entrusted to it and fulfill other duties of an agent, including, but not limited to, ensuring that such orders, regardless of their size or source, receive proper representation and timely execution in accordance with the terms of the orders and the rules of the Exchange. To enable the BIMM to carry out its agency responsibilities with respect to P/A orders submitted through the Linkage, the BSE would require that a BIMM submit prior written instructions to BOX regarding the routing of any P/A orders that the Market Maker would send through the Linkage. BOX would immediately route all P/A orders on behalf of the Market Maker according to these instructions. The order would be generated automatically by BOX and routed to the away exchange with the required BIMM clearing and valid-clearing-firm (“VCF”) information included. Each execution received from an away exchange would result in the automatic generation of a trade execution on BOX between the original Public Customer Order and the BIMM.
The addition of a BIMM should ensure that a Market Maker on BOX is ultimately responsible for decisions regarding the routing of P/A and S orders and exercises appropriate discretion over such orders. While BOX may carry out the mechanics of routing such orders, a BIMM will be responsible for providing BOX with instructions on how and where to route order. Further, all P/A orders routed from BOX will carry a BIMM's clearing and VCF information and any execution received from an away exchange will result in a trade execution on BOX between the original Public Customer Order and the BIMM. The Commission believes that the proposed use of a BIMM addresses the concerns of commenters and should ensure that P/A and S orders will be handled in accordance with the Linkage Plan.
As discussed above, under the proposed BOX Rules, all in-bound agency orders received by BOX, including P orders and P/A orders, would be checked against the NBBO using BOX's trade-through filter mechanism as set forth in Chapter V, section 16(b).
As proposed in Amendment No. 3, if BOX were not quoting at the NBBO, an incoming P or P/A Order would be exposed on the BOX Book for three seconds at the NBBO price, during which time any Options Participant would be able to execute against the order. At the end of this three-second period, if the order were not fully executed and a better price existed at an away exchange(s), a P/A order would be generated automatically by the BOX, and routed to the away exchange. In the event that BOX was no longer quoting at the best price when it received the P or P/A Order, the BSE proposed that these orders also would be processed through the filter. Any unexecuted quantity that remained on the book after the three-second exposure period would be returned to the originating exchange.
Commenters express concern that BSE's proposal to expose incoming P and P/A orders from away markets to the three-second exposure when BOX was no longer disseminating the NBBO would be inconsistent with the Linkage Plan
BSE responded to commenters' concerns in Amendment No. 4 by proposing to amend its proposed rules to exclude incoming P and P/A Orders from exposure for three seconds when BOX was no longer disseminating the NBBO at the time it receives an incoming P or P/A Order.
The Commission believes that the proposed use of the filter for agency orders submitted by a BOX Participant should provide an effective means for avoiding trade-throughs.
Another commenter questions why BOX proposes to expose the unexecuted portion of incoming P orders to BOX
The Linkage Plan permits Linkage Orders that are larger than the Firm Principal Quote Size or the Firm Customer Quote Size to be handled outside of the automatic execution systems of the Linkage Participants and and provides Participants with up to 15 seconds to reply to a sending Participant.
As described in more detail above, the proposed BOX Rules provide for a PIP during which an OFP or Market Maker may submit a Customer Order for price improvement at a price of at least one cent better than the prevailing NBBO. Upon entering the Customer Order into the PIP, the OFP or Market Maker “guarantees” the Customer Order at that better price. Thus, the Customer Order is guaranteed at the end of the PIP an execution of at least one penny better than the NBBO was at the commencement of the PIP.
One commenter argues that use of the PIP may result in a pattern or practice of trade-throughs in violation of the Linkage Plan
Finally, two commenters also contend that the PIP would result in trade-throughs because orders on the BOX Book would not be able to trade against the price at which a CPO is willing to buy or sell in a PIP, the CPO PIP Reference Price.
The Commission notes that only orders executed during BOX's PIP may be priced in penny increments and that the OFP who represents the CPO would be the only Options Participant aware of the price at which a CPO is willing to buy or sell (the CPO PIP Reference Price.) As described above, all orders executed in the PIP are “guaranteed” at a better price than the NBBO at the initiation of the PIP.
Because the CPO PIP Reference Price is not a displayed interest, the requirement to avoid trading through that price would not apply. The Commission believes that the trade should be considered to have occurred at the time the order is guaranteed at a price at least a penny better than the NBBO. Accordingly, the Commission believes that no trade-through could result from an execution during a PIP. Therefore, the Commission finds that BSE's proposed PIP is appropriate and is consistent with the Linkage Plan.
As described above, BSE proposes to have “BOX-Top Orders” in lieu of market orders. BOX-Top Orders entered into the BOX Book are executed at the best price available in the BOX market for the total quantity available from any contra bid (offer). Any residual volume would be automatically converted to a Limit Order at the price at which part of the original BOX-Top Order was executed.
One commenter states that the process of automatically converting the unexecuted portion of a BOX-Top Order into a Limit Order is inconsistent with the Linkage Plan because the unexecuted remaining portion of a BOX-Top Order could lock or cross other markets, which the Linkage Plan requires Participants to avoid.
The commenter correctly states that the Linkage Plan provides that dissemination of locked or crossed markets shall be avoided.
Section 17 of the Act
The BSE plans to become a participant in this Agreement. Under this Agreement, the examining SROs will examine firms that are common members of the BSE and the particular examining SRO for compliance with certain provisions of the Act, certain of the rules and regulations adopted thereunder, certain examining SRO rules, and certain BOX Rules. In addition, the BOX Rules contemplate participation in this Agreement by requiring that any OFP be a member of at least one of the examining SROs.
The Commission's approval of the BSE's proposed rule change will not be effective until the BSE has become a participant in several NMS plans. Specifically, the BSE must join the Plan for the Reporting of Consolidated Options Last Sale Reports and Quotation Information (known as the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”)), the Linkage Plan, and the Options Listing Procedures Plan (“OLPP”). In addition, the BSE will need to become a participant in the Options Clearing Corporation.
In reviewing the BSE's proposal, the Commission is required under section 3(f) of the Act,
As noted above, the proposed BOX facility would provide a new fully automatic electronic trading market for options. In the Commission's view, if the BOX market is successful in attracting new market participants and order flow, the facility could serve as a new source of liquidity for options investors and promote greater competition among options market centers. In particular, the BOX system, in contrast to the other options exchanges, would have multiple and competing market makers rather than a specialist-driven system. There would be no designated specialists, primary market makers, or lead market makers with authority to control trading in a particular options class. Market making in an options class on BOX would be open to all qualified Options Participants who are approved by the Exchange as Market Makers.
Additionally, BOX's trading rules are designed to establish an anonymous central order book with price/time priority, which may result in better pricing because trading participants have an incentive to post their very best prices rapidly. Moreover, the BOX PIP presents the opportunity for increased competition for Customer Orders and will guarantee the Customer Order that initiates the PIP receives price improvement of at least $.01 over the current NBBO.
If BOX succeeds in attracting order flow, it may serve as a great source of liquidity for investors, and this, in turn, could promote greater efficiency of executions. Similarly, the availability of novel features should provide investors and issuers with new opportunities to interact, thereby encouraging capital formation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment No. 4, including whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Comments may also be submitted electronically at the following e-mail address:
Pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
Although, the Commission's approval of the BSE's proposed rule change to establish trading rules for the BOX facility is final, it will not be effective until the BSE takes the following actions:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4) The BSE must file a separate proposed rule change with the Commission pursuant to section 19(b) of the Act,
•
•
•
•
Each of these conditions to file proposed rule changes will be satisfied upon effectiveness under section 19(b) of the Act.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The ISE is proposing to provide for the entry and execution of block and facilitation trades at the midpoint between the standard trading increments. The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed new language is in
(a) Block-Size Orders. Block-size orders are orders for fifty (50) contracts or more.
(b) For purposes of this Rule,
(c) Block Order Mechanism. The Block Order Mechanism is a process by which a Member can obtain liquidity for the execution of block-size orders.
(1) Upon the entry of an order into the Block Order Mechanism, a broadcast message will be sent
(2) At the conclusion of the time given [Crowd Participants]
(i) No change.
(ii) No change.
(iii) No change.
(d) Facilitation Mechanism. The Facilitation Mechanism is a process by which an Electronic Access Member can facilitate block-size Public Customer Orders. Electronic Access Members must be willing to facilitate the entire size of orders entered into the Facilitation Mechanism.
(1) Upon the entry of an order into the Facilitation Mechanism, a broadcast message will be sent [to the crowd Participants, which]
(2) [Indications]
[(3) Crowd Participants may indicate a willingness to facilitate an order at an improved price that is equal to or higher (lower) than the best bid (offer) on the Exchange by entering orders or changing their quotes, as applicable.]
[(4)]
(i) Unless there is sufficient size to execute the entire facilitation order at a better price, Public Customer bids (offers) [on the Exchange] at the time the facilitation order is executed that are priced higher (lower) than the facilitation price will be executed at the facilitation price. Non-Customer bids (offers) [on the Exchange] at the time the facilitation order is executed that are priced higher (lower) than the facilitation price will be executed at their stated price, thereby providing the order being facilitated a better price for the number of contracts associated with such higher bids (lower offers).
(ii) The facilitating Electronic Access Member will execute at least forty percent (40%) of the original size of the facilitation order, but only after better-priced orders and quotes, as well as Public Customer Orders at the facilitation price are executed. [Indications] Responses, quotes and Non-Customer Orders at the facilitation price will participate in the execution of the facilitation order based upon the percentage of the total number of contracts available at the best price that is represented by the size of the Non-Customer Order or quote.
.01 It will be a violation of a Member's duty of best execution to its customer if it were to cancel a facilitation order to avoid execution of the order at a better price. The availability of the Facilitation Mechanism does not alter a Member's best execution duty to get the best price for its customer. Accordingly, while facilitation orders can be canceled during the time period given for the entry of [Indications]
.02 Responses represent non-firm interest that can be canceled at any time prior to execution. Responses are not displayed to any market participants.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to permit the ISE to execute and report block and facilitation trades at prices that are priced at the midpoint between the standard $.05 and $.10 trading increments (a “Split Price”). The ISE believes that this would provide ISE members with greater flexibility in the pricing of their block-size trades and allow a greater opportunity for price improvement for large-size orders. The ISE also believes that the proposed rule change also would provide a mechanism to allow the ISE to be competitive with the floor-based exchanges where there are informal procedures that permit trades to effectively receive Split Prices.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to allow orders to be entered into the Block and Facilitation Mechanisms in $.025 increments for options with a standard minimum trading increment of $.05 (
In connection with the proposal to allow Split Prices in the Block and Facilitation Mechanism, the Exchange also proposes to expand participation in the Block and Facilitation Mechanisms. Currently, when an order is entered into either Mechanism, a message is sent to “Crowd Participants,” who are given a certain amount of time to respond if they are interested in participating in the block-size trade. “Crowd Participants” are ISE market makers appointed to the options class and other ISE members with proprietary orders at the inside bid or offer for a particular series. Instead of limiting the broadcast message to the Crowd Participants, the Exchange proposes to send a broadcast message to all members and permit all members to respond if they wish to participate in the block-size transaction. The Exchange proposes, however, to prohibit the entry of a response that is for the account of an options market maker from another options exchange. The Exchange believes that this narrow limitation is necessary because ISE market makers are not given an opportunity to participate in trades executed on the floors of the other options exchanges. As a result, ISE believes that its market makers would be at a competitive disadvantage if options market makers from other exchanges were given such opportunity at the ISE.
The ISE also proposes to eliminate a restriction on the price at which members are permitted to respond to an order entered into the Facilitation Mechanism. Under the current rule, Crowd Participants are only permitted to respond at the proposed facilitation price. If a Crowd Participant wants to provide a better price to the order being facilitated, it must enter an order or quote into the market. As the ISE is only proposing to allow Split Pricing for block-size orders executed through the Block and Facilitation Mechanisms, it would be necessary to remove this limitation in order to allow members to respond at Split Prices.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to clarify the rule by providing definitions of a “broadcast message” and a “Response” and using those terms consistently throughout the rule. In addition, the proposal would add language to indicate that the Responses would represent non-firm interest that would be able to be canceled at any time prior to execution, and that Responses would not be displayed to any market participants. The ISE states that this has always been the case, but was not previously included in the text of the rule.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under section 6(b)(5)
This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition. Rather, it will allow the ISE to better compete with the other options exchanges for block-size orders.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on the proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(a) By order approve such proposed rule change; or
(b) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Comments may also be submitted electronically at the following e-mail address:
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August, 18, 2003, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Commission received five comment letters on the proposed rule change.
(a)-(f) (No Change).
(g) Definitions
(1) Established business relationship
(A) An established business relationship exists between a member and a person if:
(i) the person has made a financial transaction
(ii)
[(ii)]
(B) A person's established business relationship with a member does not extend to the member's affiliated entities unless the person would reasonably expect them to be included. Similarly, a person's established business relationship with a member's affiliate does not extend to the member unless the person would reasonably expect the member to be included.
(2)-(3) (No Change).
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) established requirements for sellers and telemarketers to participate in a national do-not-call registry.
On July 2, 2003, the SEC requested that the NASD amend its telemarketing rules to include a requirement for its members to participate in the national do-not-call registry.
The NASD submitted a proposed rule change to amend NASD Rule 2211,
The NASD currently provides its members with an “existing customer” exception to its requirement that members make their a telemarketing calls only during certain times of day (8 a.m. to 9 p.m. local time at the called party's location) and to its requirement that members provide certain information about the caller during the course of the telephone conversation.
As originally proposed, the established business relationship exception would have enabled NASD members to make a telephone solicitation as long as the call's recipient had made a financial transaction with the member within 18 months preceding the date of the telemarketing call, or if the recipient had contacted the member to inquire about a product or service offered by the member within the three months preceding the date of the telemarketing call.
The second exception to the national do-not-call rules pertains to those persons from whom the member has obtained prior express written invitation or permission to make a telemarketing call.
The NASD also proposed that its members must institute certain procedures related to do-not-call lists. As proposed, these procedures must include requirements to: have a written policy for maintaining a do-not-call list, train personnel engaged in telemarketing in the existence and use of the do-not-call list, record and disclose requests from a person to be added to the member's do-not-call list, and have the member provide the called party with the name of the individual caller, the name of the member, a telephone number or address at which the member may be contacted, and that the purpose of the call is to solicit the purchase of securities or related services.
In addition to proposing certain baseline procedures that members must follow, the NASD proposed a “safe harbor” under which a member would not be liable for calling a person on the national do-not-call registry if that call is the result of an error and if the telemarketer's routine business practice meets certain specified standards.
The NASD proposed that the applicability of the telemarketing and telephone solicitation restrictions and exceptions would extend to wireless telephone subscribers.
The commission received five comment letters addressing the proposed rule change.
In general, the five commenters believe that the proposed rule change, as proposed in the original filing, would restrict the ability of member firms to contact their existing customers.
The established business relationship exclusion, under the FCC's amendment to the TCPA, provides that formation of an existing relationship involves a voluntary two-way communication “with or without an exchange of consideration.”
In addition, commenters expressed concerns that changing the interpretation from a customer that “carries an account” to requiring a “financial transaction” within the previous eighteen months imposes difficult compliance issues, increases confusion, and generally restricts the ability of broker-dealers to contact their customers. These commenters believe the change undermines the broker-client relationship. In addition, some commenters claimed that narrowing the scope of existing customers for the established business relationship exception would force broker-dealers to implement costly system changes that distinguish among their account holders.
All five commenters believe that the NASD's definition of an established business relationship is too narrow and omits various situations under which a broker/dealer may need to contact its customers.
The commenters request a review of the proposal with consideration of the wide array of business activities of all member firms. One commenter stated that the statutory 21-day comment period was insufficient to address the issues raised by this proposed rule change.
One commenter stated that the proposed definition of established business relationship does not properly provide for networking relationships between different entities.
As described above, NASD's proposed rule contains an exemption from the do-not-call provisions if a consumer has provided consent in writing to be called by the firm.
In its letter included within Amendment No. 1, NASD noted that proposed NASD Rule 2212 would restrict only “telephone solicitations,” which would be defined as “the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person.” Accordingly, under the original proposed definition, the NASD interpreted a telephone call to a customer concerning a margin call or similar administrative event would not constitute a telephone solicitation.
In response to commenters' concerns about the narrow scope of the established business relationship exception, the NASD stated that a member may, at times, be compelled to contact a customer to satisfy the member's attendant agency obligations, including situations where market swings, interest rate changes, new tax laws, or specific industry or company news may necessitate a broker contacting his or her customer.
In addition, the NASD proposed two changes to the definition of an “established business relationship.” The first change to the definition would encompass situations where the person has a security position, a money balance, or account activity at a clearing firm on behalf of such member within the previous 18 months. The second change to the definition would include situations where a member was the “broker/dealer of record” for an account of a person within the 18 months immediately preceding the date of the telemarketing call. Both definitions of established business relationship continue for 18 months after a triggering event, thus providing an opportunity for a firm to win back a customer.
Moreover, the NASD noted that the proposed rule change cannot assure members that compliance with the proposed NASD Rule 2212 ensures compliance with FCC rules because members also must comply with the telemarketing rules of the FCC and any FCC interpretations of those rules.
In response to one commenter's concerns with respect to networking agreements, the NASD stated that it did not agree with the commenter's view on the scope of a member's established business relationship with banks' networking broker/dealer. The NASD stated that it believed that the FCC and FTC rules concerning “related parties” were clear in that a person's established business relationship with a member does not extend to the member's affiliated entities unless the person would reasonably expect them to be included. The NASD stated that it similarly designed its established business relationship exception to not extend to the member unless the person receiving the call would reasonably expect the member to be included as a related party. The NASD stated that it does believe that a networking arrangement, which is formed by contract and that also may be terminated by a bank under such contract, meets the threshold intended by the FCC and FTC rules. In addition, it stated that it does not believe that a customer of the bank that has not made a financial transaction with a broker/dealer would reasonably expect to be contacted by such broker/dealer.
In response to one commenter's concern about the need for the prior express consent to be in writing, the NASD stated that it interpreted the FCC and FTC rules to require prior written consent in order for an exception to the prohibition against calling the registrants on the national do-not-call registry to apply. The NASD noted that the FCC rule states that a person or entity shall not be held liable for violating the national do-not-call registry prohibition if “[i]t has obtained the subscriber's prior express invitation or permission. Such permission must be evidenced by a
After careful review of the proposed rule change and the related comments, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder which govern the NASD
The Commission believes that the investing public's participation in the do-not-call registry, as described in the proposed rule change, creates an expectation among national do-not-call registrants that they will not receive unwanted telephone solicitations from NASD members. The Commission believes that the NASD's proposal generally prohibits its members from making telemarketing calls to people who have registered on the national do-not-call registry, while retaining time-of-day and firm-specific do-not-call list restrictions.
The Commission recognizes the importance of having certain exceptions to the general prohibition of NASD members from soliciting persons who have signed up on the FCC's national do-not-call registry. The Commission believes that the “established business relationship” exception, “prior express invitation or permission” exception, and a “personal relationship” exception provide appropriate scenarios where an NASD member should not be precluded from making a telemarketing call to do-not-call registrants.
The Commission further believes that the NASD's expansion of “established business relationship” is appropriate. As originally drafted, an established business relationship would exist between the customer and an NASD member as long as the call's recipient had made a financial transaction with the member within 18 months preceding the date of the telemarketing call, or if the recipient had contacted the member to inquire about a product or service offered by the member within the three months preceding the date of the telemarketing call.
The Commission believes that an NASD member should be able to discuss the purchase or sale of a security with a customer who has registered on the national do-not-call registry without fear of violating an NASD rule when there is some development that could materially impact the investment decision of a reasonable investor. As originally proposed, an established business relationship did not exist unless an account holder had made a financial transaction within the previous eighteen months or affirmatively contacted the member to make an account inquiry within the past three months. The Commission believes that the definition, as originally proposed, would have restricted a member from making a telemarketing call to its customer in many situations where a prudent investor would ordinarily desire to be contacted, such as the existence of market swings, interest rate changes, new tax laws, or specific industry or company news. The Commission believes that the expansion of the definition of “established business relationship” exception to include persons that have a security position, money balance or account activity with a member or at a clearing firm that provides clearing services on behalf of a member will, among other things, assist NASD members in upholding their agency obligations to customers. In addition, the Commission believes that broker/dealers of record who have served as such for a customer within the eighteen months preceding the date of the telemarketing call should be allowed to contact a customer whose account is held directly at a mutual fund or variable insurance product issuer.
Moreover, the Commission believes that the proposed established business relationship exception adequately protects customers who are most interested in not being contacted by a member by specifying that the exception does not apply to those individuals who have specifically requested to be put on a member's do-not-call list. The Commission further believes a member should not generally be restricted from contacting those do-not-call registrants from whom the member has received express written consent to contact and those registrants who have a personal relationship with the associated person making the call.
As described above, the NASD also proposed that its members must institute certain procedures related to do-not-call lists.
As described above, the NASD proposed “safe harbor” procedures that a member could follow to avoid liability for do-not-call list violations that arise out of errors if the telemarketer's routine business practice meets certain specified standards.
The Commission believes that the NASD's proposal to apply the telemarketing and telephone solicitation restrictions to wireless telephone numbers is appropriate, given that consumers can register wireless telephone numbers in the national do-not-call registry. Further, the Commission believes that a member should not be able to avoid accountability for complying with telemarketing restrictions and regulations by employing another entity to perform telemarketing services on behalf of the member. Accordingly, the Commission finds proposed NASD Rule 2212(f), relating to outsourcing telemarketing, to be appropriate.
The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, for approving Amendment No. 1 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. 1, including whether Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Comments may also be submitted electronically at the following e-mail address:
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NASD is proposing to amend NASD Rule 2130 to correct a typographical error in Rule 2130(c). The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed new language is in
(a) and (b) No change.
(c) For purposes of this rule, the terms “sales practice violation,” “investment-related,” and “involved” shall have the meanings set forth in the Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration [of]
In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change would correct a typographical error in NASD
NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act
NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
NASD has requested that the Commission waive the usual five-business-day notice period and the usual 30-day pre-operative period. The Commission notes that the proposal merely corrects a typographical error in NASD Rule 2130(c) and raises no new regulatory issues. As a result, the Commission believes that it is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to waive the five-business-day notice period and accelerate the operative date so that the typographical error can be corrected without delay. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Comments may also be submitted electronically at the following e-mail address:
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NFA, on December 12, 2003, submitted the proposed rule change to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) for approval and invoked the “ten-day” provision of section 21(j) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”)
NFA's proficiency requirements for persons engaged in security futures activities allow current registrants to qualify to engage in these activities by taking an appropriate training program rather than a test. NFA anticipated updating the Series 3 examination
Section 15A(k) of the Exchange Act
NFA has prepared statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change, burdens on competition, and comments received from members, participants, and others. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. These statements are set forth in Sections A, B, and C below.
An NFA Interpretive Notice titled “NFA Compliance Rules 2-7 and 2-24 and Registration Rule 401: Proficiency Requirements for Security Futures Products” provides that new registrants can satisfy their proficiency requirements for security futures by taking an appropriate training program if they take the Series 3 examination and apply for registration before the Series 3 examination is updated to include security futures questions. The Interpretive Notice also provides that new branch office managers and current supervisory personnel can satisfy the proficiency requirements for designated security futures principals through training before the Series 30 examination is updated. Current registrants and branch office managers can also satisfy their proficiency requirements by training.
Although the Interpretive Notice does not include a deadline for updating the Series 3 and Series 30 examinations, NFA anticipated updating these examinations by January 2004.
Security futures account for a very small amount of U.S. futures volume. Extrapolating from current volume figures, we estimate that annual trading volume on U.S. futures exchanges will be approximately 1.3 billion contracts for calendar year 2003, while security futures volume will be approximately 2.5 million contracts.
The number of individuals qualifying to engage in security futures activities is also a small percentage of those eligible to qualify. From January through November 2003, 1054 futures-only registrants have completed the web-based proficiency training offered by NFA and NASD. In the last four months, the number of individuals who completed the proficiency training has dropped significantly, averaging just under 50 futures-only registrants per month.
Looking at the same period, 2459 individuals took the Series 3 examination from January through November. Unlike the training figures, however, the number of people taking the exam has remained relatively steady, with a monthly average of 241 for the last four months.
The regulatory scheme for security futures is different from and more complex than the regulatory scheme for other futures contracts. As a result, when NFA adds security futures products questions to the Series 3 examination, the exam will be significantly longer and will require applicants to learn additional material. NFA does not believe it is cost-effective to impose a burden on all new entrants to learn this information when the vast majority of them do not appear to be interested in selling or trading these products. Similar considerations apply to updating the Series 30 examination.
We have been coordinating with NASD and are aware that it has requested similar relief. NFA and NASD have the same regulatory aims and, in fact, the regulatory scheme for security futures products anticipates that the two entities will have comparable regulatory requirements. Postponing the testing requirement for both NFA and NASD promotes regulatory comparability and reduces the potential for regulatory arbitrage.
For the reasons discussed above, NFA proposes to postpone the use of the revised exams indefinitely. In the meantime, we will continue to coordinate with NASD and will monitor the level of activity and the amount of interest in security futures products. In particular, we will review the following security futures information on an ongoing basis:
• Volume,
• Who is trading these products,
• Number of associated persons completing the training program,
• Number of accounts approved for trading,
• Nature of those customers,
• Customer complaints, and
• Audit findings that indicate potential regulatory concerns.
As noted above, we have already prepared test questions and can add them to the Series 3 and Series 30 question banks with a minimum of effort. We will be able to update the Series 3 and Series 30 examinations quickly if our review indicates that it is either necessary or cost-effective or if either the SEC or the CFTC so requests. We will, of course, need enough lead-time for test preparation services to update their course materials so that new applicants can study the appropriate material before taking the examination, but the entire process should not take more than four months.
The rule change is authorized by, and consistent with, section 15A(k) of the Act.
The rule change will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act and the Commodity Exchange Act.
NFA did not publish the rule changes to the membership for comment. NFA did not receive comment letters concerning the rule change.
The proposed rule change became effective on December 24, 2003.
Within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the proposed rule change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC, may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the proposed rule change be refiled in accordance with the provisions of section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change conflicts with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file nine copies of the submission with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Comments may also be submitted electronically at the following e-mail address:
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Phlx proposes to amend its schedule of dues, fees, and charges by: (1) Permanently adopting a monthly fee of $250 for each member who derives his/her primary income from floor brokerage business conducted on the
The Exchange previously suspended its equity floor brokerage assessment fee of 5 percent of net floor brokerage income through December 31, 2003 and adopted a monthly fee of $250 for each member who derives his/her primary income from equity floor brokerage business.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Office of the Secretary, the Phlx, and the Commission.
In its filing with the Commission, the Phlx included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to attract business to the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange believes that permanently waiving the equity floor brokerage fee of 5 percent of net floor brokerage income and implementing a modest monthly fee of $250 should encourage floor brokers to send additional order flow to the Exchange and enhance the competitiveness of the Exchange. Charging a flat $250 monthly charge would also simplify Phlx accounting procedures and billing. In addition, specifying that the $250 monthly charge would be assessed on members who derive their primary income from brokerage business conducted on the equity floor of the Exchange should help to avoid any member confusion with respect to the billing of the floor brokerage assessment.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of dues, fees, and charges is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any inappropriate burden on competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing proposed rule change, as amended, has become effective immediately pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Comments may also be submitted electronically at the following e-mail address:
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of intent.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a change in the study limits of an Environmental Impact Statement being prepared for a proposed transportation project in Dallas and Ellis Counties, Texas.
Mr. Salvador Deocampo, District Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 300 East 8th Street, Room 826, Austin, Texas 78701, Telephone 512-536-5950.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) and the Dallas County Department of Public Works, is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposal to build Loop 9, a new location highway, from US 287 to IH 20 in Southern Dallas and Northern Ellis Counties. A previous notice, published in the Federal and State Registers identified the study limits as SH 360 to IH 20. Due to changes in the proposed alignment location in the vicinity of SH 360, the study limits have been changed from “SH 360 to IH 20” to “US 287 to IH 20”. The study corridor is still approximately 40 miles.
From a regional perspective, there is still a great demand for additional east-west transportation capacity and access throughout the limits of the corridor. Over the last 30 years, this area has experienced tremendous growth and has more than quadrupled in population. A Major Investment Study (MIS) will be integrated with the EIS. The Loop 9 facility is included in the Mobility 2025 Update: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan as a new location staged parkway calling for the preservation of right-of-way through this corridor. The environmental study will examine viable alternatives and potential transportation modes including the No-Build; Transportation
A public scoping meeting was held in June of 2003. This was the first in a series of meetings to solicit public comments on the proposed action during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. In addition, a public hearing will be held following the approval of the Draft EIS. Public notice will be given of the time and place of the meetings and the hearing. The Draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment before the public hearing.
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed section are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above.
General Motors North America, Inc. (GM) has determined that certain 2001-2003 Oldsmobile Silhouettes and 2003 Pontiac Azteks did not meet requirement S5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120—“Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.”
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), GM has petitioned for a determination that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, “Defect and Noncompliance Reports.”
Notice of receipt of the application was published, with a 30-day comment period, on August 15, 2003 in the
GM produced 55,825 model year 2001-2003 Oldsmobile Silhouettes and 15,343 model year 2003 Pontiac Azteks, totaling 71,168 vehicles. These vehicles are classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs). According to GM, the rims fitted to the MPVs were originally released for use on passenger cars, and meet all the requirements of FMVSS No. 110, “Tire Selection and Rims—Passenger Cars.” FMVSS No. 110 does not require marking the rims with either the designation of the source of the rims' dimensions or the symbol “DOT.” When the rims were subsequently released for use on the subject MPVs, they were evaluated for the alternative usage with respect to performance requirements, but they inadvertently were not reviewed with respect to the marking requirements of FMVSS No. 120. These rims meet all requirements of FMVSS No. 120, except the marking requirements of S5.2(a) and S5.2(c), which require the designation of the source of the rims' dimensions, and use of the symbol “DOT,” respectively.
Paragraph S5.2 of FMVSS No. 120 requires that each rim be marked with specific information, including a designation indicating the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions and the symbol “DOT,” constituting a certification by the manufacturer of the rim that the rim complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.
The agency concludes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. All other informational markings including the correct rim size designation, as required by FMVSS No. 120, are present. While the absence of the letter “T” could increase the possibility of mismatching rims to tires, GM stated and the agency verified that the dimensions of these rims, as published in the Tire and Rim Association Yearbook (T), and by European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation and the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association, Inc., are essentially identical. In addition, the rims of the affected vehicles are properly matched and appropriate with respect to all performance requirements and the vehicle placards correctly indicate the rim sizes.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the applicant has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance it describes is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, GM's application is hereby granted, and the applicant is exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the noncompliance.
(49 U.S.C. 301118, 301120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8).
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) has agreed to grant temporary overhead trackage rights to The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) over UP's Dallas Subdivision lines between UP milepost 245.3 at Fort Worth, TX (East Tower 55), and UP milepost 214.6 at Dallas, TX (Terminal Junction), a distance of approximately 30.7 miles.
The transaction was scheduled to become effective on January 13, 2004, and the trackage rights are scheduled to expire on January 22, 2004. The purpose of the temporary trackage rights is to allow BNSF to bridge its train service while its main lines are out of service due to certain programmed track, roadbed, and structural maintenance.
As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in
This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(8). If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34456, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Sarah W. Bailiff, 2500 Lou Menk Drive, P.O. Box 961039, Fort Worth, TX 76161-0039.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently the Bureau of the Public Debt within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning Regulations governing U.S. Treasury Certificates of Indebtedness—State and Local Government Series.
Written comments should be received on or before March 21, 2004, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Public Debt, Vicki S. Thorpe, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Requests for additional information or copies should be directed to Vicki S. Thorpe, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, (304) 480-6553.
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Written comments should be received on or before February 19, 2004 to be assured of consideration.
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to
Written comments should be received on or before February 19, 2004 to be assured of consideration.
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 Publication 1075, Tax Information Security Guidelines for Federal, State, and Local Agencies.
Written comments should be received on or before March 22, 2004 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Robert M. Coar, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the publication 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 an existing final regulations, REG-105170-97 (TD 8930) and REG-112991-01 (TD 9104), Credit for Increasing Research Activities (§ 1.41-8(b)).
Written comments should be received on or before March 22, 2004, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Robert M. Coar, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of regulations should be directed to Carol Savage 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 8716, Election To Have a Tax Year Other Than a Required Tax Year.
Written comments should be received on or before March 22, 2004, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Robert Coar, 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 Form SS-8, Determination of Worker Status for Purpose of Federal Employment Taxes and Income Tax Withholding.
Written comments should be received on or before March 22, 2004, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Robert Coar, 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.
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 Bureau of the Public Debt within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Subscription For Purchase and Issue of U.S. Treasury Securities, State and Local Government Series.
Written comments should be received on or before March 21, 2004, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Public Debt, Vicki S. Thorpe, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Vicki S. Thorpe, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, (304) 480-6553.
In rule document 04-484 beginning on page 1662 in the issue of Monday, January 12, 2004 make the following correction:
On page 1663, in the first column under the heading
In rule document 04-486 beginning on page 1664 in the issue of Monday, January 12, 2004 make the following correction:
On page 1665, in the third column, in §71.1, under the heading