Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Farm Service Agency
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Housing Service
Rural Utilities Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment Standards Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Research and Special Programs Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Office of Personnel Management.
Interim final rule with request for comments.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing interim regulations to carry out the agency reimbursement provisions of Title II of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act). The No FEAR Act requires that the President or his designee promulgate rules to regulate agency reimbursement of the Judgment Fund for payments made to employees, former employees, or applicants for Federal employment because of actual or alleged violations of Federal discrimination laws, Federal whistleblower protection laws, and/or retaliation claims arising from the assertion of rights under these laws. This rule will implement the reimbursement provisions of Title II of the No FEAR Act.
Send or deliver written comments to Jeffrey E. Sumberg, Deputy Associate Director for Workforce Relations and Accountability Policy, Office of Personnel Management, Room 7H28, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20415; by FAX at (202) 606–0967; or by e-mail at
Gary D. Wahlert by telephone at (202) 606–2920; by FAX at (202) 606–0967; or by e-mail at
The United States and its citizens are best served when the Federal workplace is free of discrimination and retaliation. In order to maintain a productive workplace that is fully engaged with the many important missions before the Government, it is essential that the rights of employees, former employees and applicants for Federal employment under discrimination, whistleblower, and retaliation laws be steadfastly protected and that agencies that violate these rights be held accountable. Congress has found that agencies cannot be run effectively if those agencies practice or tolerate discrimination. Furthermore, Congress has found that notification of present and former Federal employees and applicants for Federal employment of their rights under discrimination and whistleblower laws, combined with training of employees, should increase Federal agency compliance with the laws. Therefore, under authority delegated by the President, OPM is issuing interim regulations to implement the reimbursement provisions of Title II of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act), Public Law 107–174. OPM will issue proposed regulations concerning the other parts of the No FEAR Act separately.
One of the key provisions of the No FEAR Act requires that agencies reimburse the Judgment Fund for payments concerning violations or alleged violations of Federal discrimination laws, Federal whistleblower protection laws, and/or retaliation claims arising from the assertion of rights under these laws. Prior to the enactment of the No FEAR Act, agencies were not required to reimburse the Judgment Fund. Congress has created a financial incentive to foster a Federal workplace that is free of discrimination and retaliation.
The No FEAR Act does not change the criteria or process for obtaining payments from the Judgment Fund; it only creates a reimbursement requirement for agencies. In other words, the No FEAR Act does not authorize agencies to make payments directly to employees, former employees, or applicants for Federal employment that, prior to the No FEAR Act, would have been made from the Judgment Fund. Judgments, awards, or settlements that were eligible for payment from the Judgment Fund before the No Fear Act becomes effective will continue to be paid by the Judgment Fund.
As noted, however, the No FEAR Act requires agencies to reimburse the Judgment Fund for payments made in connection with 28 U.S.C. 2414, 2517, 2672, 2677 or with 31 U.S.C. 1304. OPM interprets the No FEAR Act to apply to any payment from the Judgment Fund on or after October 1, 2003, for violations or alleged violations of Federal discrimination laws, Federal whistleblower protection laws, and/or retaliation claims arising from the assertion of rights under these laws.
In addition to requiring reimbursement of the Judgment Fund, Congress expected such reimbursements to be made within a reasonable amount of time. Accordingly, these regulations specify timeframes within which agencies must either repay the Judgment Fund or contact the administrator of the Judgment Fund to make arrangements for a payment schedule. The administrator of the Judgment Fund is the Financial Management Service (FMS), the Department of the Treasury. The timeframe begins upon written notice by FMS to the agency's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) that a payment from the Judgment Fund has been disbursed. OPM notes in the regulations that agencies that fail to reimburse or make timely arrangements for reimbursement of the Judgment Fund will be identified and posted on the FMS Web site.
Section 202 of the No FEAR Act requires agencies to notify covered individuals of the rights and protections concerning Federal discrimination laws, whistleblower protection laws, and/or retaliation claims arising from the assertion of rights under these laws. Agencies must also conduct training of employees about these rights and protections. OPM intends to publish proposed regulations on these subjects separately.
Section 203 of the No FEAR Act requires that each Federal agency
Section 204 of the No FEAR Act requires OPM, as the President's designee, to conduct a comprehensive study to determine the best practices relating to appropriate disciplinary actions against employees who violate Federal discrimination laws, whistleblower protection laws, and/or protections against retaliation arising from the assertion of rights under these laws. Based on the results of this study, OPM will issue advisory guidelines that incorporate the best practices that agencies may follow to take such disciplinary actions. In addition, the No FEAR Act requires agencies to report to the Congress, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Attorney General on the extent to which they have adopted or will follow the guidelines issued by OPM. OPM intends to publish proposed regulations on these subjects separately.
Immediate implementation of this rule as an interim final rule with provision for post-promulgation public comment is based upon the exceptions found at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A), (b)(3)(B) and (d). The agency obligations under the No FEAR Act to reimburse the Judgment Fund begin on October 1, 2003. It is essential that all agencies understand their responsibilities regarding this requirement. OPM has determined under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A) that the reimbursement provision only effects the rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice and has no effect on the substantive rights of those entitled to payment from the Judgment Fund. OPM has determined under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) that it would be contrary to the public interest to delay promulgation of the rules governing the reimbursement provisions of the No FEAR Act. For the same reasons, OPM has determined under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) that there is good cause for the interim final rule to be effective October 1, 2003, with provision for post-promulgation public comment. OPM is seeking public comment on the regulation and will consider all comments when promulgating the final rule.
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulations pertain only to Federal employees and agencies.
This interim final rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This regulation meets the applicable standard set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This action pertains to agency management, personnel and organization and does not substantially affect the rights of obligations of non-agency parties and, accordingly, is not a “rule” as that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.
Administrative practice and procedure, discrimination, prohibited personnel practices, claims, discipline.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Sec. 204 of Pub. L. 107–174, 116 Stat. 566; Presidential Memorandum dated July 8, 2003, “Delegation of Authority Under Section 204(a) of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2002.”
This subpart implements Title II of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 concerning the obligation of Federal agencies to reimburse the Judgment Fund for payments. The regulations describe agency obligations and the procedures for reimbursement and compliance.
In this part:
A Federal agency must reimburse the Judgment Fund for payments covered by the No FEAR Act. Such reimbursement must be made within a reasonable time as described in § 724.104.
(a) The procedures that agencies must use to reimburse the Judgment Fund are those prescribed by the Financial Management Service (FMS), the Department of the Treasury, in Chapter 3100 of the Treasury Financial Manual. All reimbursements to the Judgment Fund covered by the No FEAR Act are expected to be fully collectible from the agency. FMS will provide notice to the agency's Chief Financial Officer within 15 business days after payment from the Judgment Fund. For any payments from the Fund between October 1, 2003, and January 22, 2004, FMS will provide such notice within 15 business days after January 22, 2004, if it has not already provided such notice.
(b) Within 45 business days of notice by FMS, agencies must reimburse the Judgment Fund or contact FMS to make arrangements in writing for reimbursement.
An agency's failure to reimburse the Judgment Fund or to contact FMS within 45 business days of an FMS notice for reimbursement under § 724.104 will be recorded on an annual basis and posted on the FMS Web site.
This subpart is effective on October 1, 2003.
[RESERVED]
[RESERVED]
[RESERVED]
Rural Housing Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Utilities Service, Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Final rule.
This action amends the regulations governing the servicing of Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) loan and grant programs by adding a section to clarify that any amounts paid by RBS on account of the liabilities of a guaranteed loan borrower will constitute a Federal debt owing to RBS by the guaranteed loan borrower. RBS may use all remedies available to it, including offset under the Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA), to collect the debt from the borrower.
This rule is effective on January 22, 2004.
Bill Hagy, Deputy Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA, Stop 3220, Room 5050, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250–3250, Telephone (202) 720–7287, or internet e-mail
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866 and has been determined to be a nonsignificant regulatory action by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This rule is not published for notice and comment because it implements statutory and regulatory provisions that are binding on the RBS. Since RBS does not have discretion in this matter, public comment would not be able to affect the provisions of the rule. Therefore, the rule is published as final and effective upon publication.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program number assigned to this program is: 10.768, Business and Industrial Loans.
There are no reporting or record keeping requirements associated with this rule.
It is the determination of the Secretary that this action is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the environment. Therefore, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. In accordance with this rule: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings in accordance with 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before bringing suit in court challenging action taken under this rule unless those regulations specifically allow bringing suit at an earlier time.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal Governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, USDA must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local or tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of UMRA generally requires USDA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal Governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the undersigned has determined and certified by signature of this document that this rule will not have a significant
The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local Governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.
This rule clarifies the policy of the RBS concerning the statutory mandate imposed on the Agency by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (104 Pub. L. 134) (DCIA).
Section 3701 of 31 U.S.C. defines “claim” or “debt” in part to include funds owed on account of loans guaranteed by the Government. This rule puts the guarantee borrower on notice that RBS will attempt to collect from them through Treasury Offset and any other available remedies when a final loss claim is paid to a guaranteed lender. It provides that a debt for purposes of the DCIA is established upon payment of a loss claim to the original guarantee-lender.
The Debt Collection Act of 1982 (Act) (97 Pub. L. 365) provides for the use of administrative, salary and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) offsets by Government Agencies to collect delinquent Federal debts. Any money that is or may become payable from the United States to an individual or entity indebted to RBS may be offset for the collection of a debt owed to RBS. In addition, money may be collected from the debtor's retirement payments for delinquent amounts owed to RBS if the debtor is an employee or retiree of a Federal Agency, the U.S. Postal Service, the Postal Rate Commission, or a member of the U.S. Armed Forces or the Reserve. Current regulations published for RBS programs in title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations do not expressly discuss at what point a debt to the Federal Government is established for purposes of the remedies available under the DCIA; this rulemaking expressly provides that the debt is created at the time the loss claim is paid to the guaranteed lender.
This rule is consistent with the Act and clarifies that, in cases of guaranteed loans, a Federal debt is established when a guaranteed loss claim is paid. The loss claim paid may or may not be a final loss claim for purposes of this rule. Accordingly, if several claims are paid over time, separate debts are created accordingly. RBS will exercise all remedies available for collection, including those provided by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. RBS has already implemented a practice of referring debts arising from direct loans to the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
The Agency is in the process of revising the applicable forms to include the applicant's certification and acknowledgment that any amounts paid by RBS on account of liabilities of the guaranteed loan borrower will constitute a Federal debt to RBS on the part of the borrower. The forms will provide direct notice to interested applicants of RBS' debt collection policy and memorialize their understanding and acknowledgment of RBS' collection policy.
RBS loan officials will provide notification to the B&I guaranteed borrower of their applicable rights and potential collection actions by sending a 60 day due process letter.
Accounting, Account servicing, Credit, Debt collection, Loan programs—agriculture, Low and moderate income housing loans—servicing, Offsets of Federal payments.
5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1932 Note; 7 U.S.C. 1989; 31 U.S.C. 3716; 42 U.S.C. 1480.
Any amounts paid by RBS on account of liabilities of a business and industry (B&I) program guaranteed loan borrower will constitute a Federal debt owing to RBS by the B&I guaranteed loan borrower. In such case, the RBS may use all remedies available to it, including offset under the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA), to collect the debt from the borrower. Interest charges will be established at the note rate of the guaranteed loan on the date a loss claim is paid. RBS may, at its option, refer such debt in all or part to the Department of the Treasury, before a final loss claim is determined.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Gulfstream Model G–V series airplanes. This action requires a one-time inspection of the landing gear selector dump valve (LGSDV) to determine the serial number (S/N). For any part with an affected S/N, or for any part for which the S/N cannot be determined, this action requires replacing the LGSDV with a cleaned part having an S/N within the affected range; or replacing the LGSDV with a new or serviceable part that has an S/N outside the affected range. This action is necessary to prevent uncommanded unlocking of the landing gear, which could result in collapse of the landing gear. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective February 6, 2004.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 6, 2004.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before February 23, 2004.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003–NM–275–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227–1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, P.O. Box 2206, M/S D–10, Savannah, Georgia 31402–9980. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Darby Mirocha, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ACE–116A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia 30349; telephone (770) 703–6095; fax (770) 703–6097.
The FAA has received reports that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Gulfstream Model G–V series airplanes. While on approach, a Model G–V series airplane experienced uncommanded unlocking of the landing gear following the initial “down and locked” indication. The airplane landed safely after the flightcrew used the emergency landing gear extension system. Investigators found foreign object debris in the landing gear selector dump valve (LGSDV). Subsequent investigation revealed that valves within a certain range of serial numbers (S/Ns) were not adequately cleaned during manufacturing. This condition, if not corrected, could result in uncommanded unlocking of the landing gear, which could cause the landing gear to collapse.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Gulfstream GV Customer Bulletin 114, dated December 15, 2003, which describes procedures for a one-time inspection of the LGSDV to determine the S/N of the valve. For any LGSDV with an affected S/N, the customer bulletin describes procedures for replacing the valve with a cleaned, new, or serviceable valve. Accomplishment of the action specified in the customer bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, this AD is being issued to prevent uncommanded unlocking of the landing gear, which could result in collapse of the landing gear. This AD requires a one-time inspection of the LGSDV to determine the S/N of the valve. For any LGSDV with an affected S/N, or for any LGSDV for which the S/N cannot be determined, this AD requires replacement of the LGSDV with a cleaned part having an S/N within the affected range, or with a new or serviceable part having an S/N outside the affected range. The actions are required to be accomplished in accordance with the customer bulletin described previously, except as discussed below.
Operators should note that, although the Accomplishment Instructions of the referenced customer bulletin describe procedures for submitting a service reply card to the manufacturer, this proposed AD would not require those actions.
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the customer bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2003–NM–275–AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
To prevent uncommanded unlocking of the landing gear, which could result in collapse of the landing gear, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 45 days after the effective date of this AD: Inspect the LGSDV located in the main wheel well to determine whether any serial number (S/N) listed in paragraph II.B. of Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of Gulfstream GV Customer Bulletin 114, dated December 15, 2003, is installed.
(b) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD: Replace, per paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD, any LGSDV which has been determined by the inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD to have an affected S/N; or any LGSDV for which the S/N cannot be determined. Replace in accordance with Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of Gulfstream GV Customer Bulletin 114, dated December 15, 2003.
(1) Replace the affected LGSDV with an LGSDV having an S/N inside the affected range that has been cleaned in accordance with the customer bulletin.
(2) Replace the affected LGSDV with a new or serviceable part having an S/N outside the affected range.
(c) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane an LGSDV having an S/N listed in paragraph II.B. of Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of Gulfstream Customer Bulletin 114, dated December 15, 2003, unless it has been cleaned in accordance with the customer bulletin.
(d) Although the customer bulletin referenced in this AD specifies to submit a service reply card to the manufacturer, this AD does not include such a requirement.
(e) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
(f) The actions shall be done in accordance with Gulfstream GV Customer Bulletin 114, dated December 15, 2003. 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 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, P.O. Box 2206, M/S D–10, Savannah, Georgia 31402–9980. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(g) This amendment becomes effective on February 6, 2004.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Calverton, NY. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is needed to contain aircraft operating into Calverton Executive Airpark Airport, Calverton, NY under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR).
0901 UTC June 10, 2004.
Mr. Francis Jordan, Airspace Specialist, Airspace Branch, AEA–520, Air Traffic Division, Eastern Region, Federal Aviation Administration, 1 Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, New York 11434–4809, telephone: (718) 553–4521.
On December 9, 2003, a notice proposing to amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Calverton Executive Airpark Airport, Calverton, NY was published in the
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. Class E airspace area designations for airspace extending upward from the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9L, dated September 2, 2003, and effective September 16, 2003, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published in the Order.
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) provides controlled Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for aircraft conducting IFR operations within a 6-mile radius of Calverton Executive Airpark Airport, Calverton, NY.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action”
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Calverton Executive Airpark Airport, excluding that portion that coincides with the Shirley, NY and Westhampton Beach, NY Class E airspace areas.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Restricted Area 2202C (R–2202C), Big Delta, AK, by subdividing the altitude of R–2202C, to create R–2202D. The lateral dimensions of R–2202C will remain the same, however, the internal modification of the R–2202C and subsequent establishment of R–2202D will enable the military to activate only that portion of the airspace that is actually needed to contain their operations.
0901 UTC, April 15, 2004.
Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules Division, ATA–400, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267–8783.
As a result of a recent review of R–2202 airspace, the U.S. Army requested that the FAA take action to internally subdivide R–2202C into two sub-areas. Dividing the airspace into two sub-areas will allow for more efficient real-time use of the airspace, and allow more public access.
This action amends title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 (part 73) by subdividing R–2202C, and establishing R–2202D, to enable more efficient use of airspace. Specifically this action changes the vertical limit of R–2203C to FL 310 and establishes R–2202D in the former restricted airspace of R–2202C above FL 310. The internal stratification of R–2202C and subsequent establishment of R–2202D will enable the military to activate only that portion of the airspace that is actually needed to contain hazardous operations. There are no changes to the external boundaries, altitudes, and times of designation or activities conducted within the restricted area.
Section 73.22 of part 73 was published in FAA Order 7400.8L, Special Use Airspace, dated October 7, 2003.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106 (g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by removing from the EAR references to sanctions on Angola administered by the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). In response to United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions regarding the conflict in Angola, the President, by Executive Order, directed the Department of the Treasury to maintain sanctions on the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA). On December 9, 2002, the UNSC terminated the sanctions previously imposed on UNITA. On May 6, 2003, consistent with the UNSC action, the President terminated the relevant Executive Orders, effectively ending U.S. sanctions. This rule amends the EAR to remove certain references to the sanctions which had been maintained by OFAC with respect to UNITA.
This rule is effective January 22, 2004.
Joan Roberts, Director, Foreign Policy Controls Division, Office of Strategic Trade and Foreign Policy Controls, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Telephone: (202) 482–4252, e-mail
Consistent with UNSC Resolution 864 (September 15, 1993) and subsequent related resolutions, and under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act, and section 5 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (UNPA), the President issued Executive Orders 12865 (September 26, 1993), 13069 (December 12, 1997), and 13098 (August 18, 1998), imposing sanctions on UNITA (as defined therein) and Angola. Specifically, the Department of the Treasury was directed to maintain certain sanctions on UNITA, a task that it delegated to OFAC. OFAC implemented this mandate by issuing and amending the UNITA (Angola) Sanctions Regulations, set forth at Title 31, Part 590 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These provisions block all property within the possession or control of a U.S. person in which UNITA or its senior officials have an interest. They also prohibit the unauthorized exportation by U.S. persons of mining equipment, arms and related material of all types, petroleum and petroleum products, aircraft or aircraft components, and motorized vehicles or watercraft and spare parts for such items, to the territory of Angola, other than through approved points of entry designated by the Department of the Treasury.
On December 9, 2002, based on certain steps taken to resolve the conflict in Angola, the UNSC issued Resolution 1448, terminating the sanctions measures imposed on UNITA based on UNSC Resolutions 864, 1127 (August 28, 1997), 1130 (September 29, 1997), 1173 (June 12, 1998), and 1176 (June 24, 1998). On May 6, 2003, consistent with this UNSC action, the President issued Executive Order 13298, which revoked Executive Orders 12865, 13069 and 13098, and terminated U.S. sanctions imposed on UNITA and Angola.
Consistent with these actions, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is making certain changes to the EAR. Specifically, BIS is removing references to the measures imposed by OFAC on UNITA from parts 732, 738, 740 and 746 of the EAR.
1. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military and foreign affairs function of the United States (Sec. 5 U.S.C. 553 (a)(1)). Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553 or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Exports, Foreign trade.
Embargoes, Exports, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
(a) A comprehensive embargo against Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Sudan; and
(b) An embargo against certain persons, e.g., Specially Designated Terrorists (SDT), Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO), Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT), and Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers (SDNT). Please see part 744 of the EAR for controls maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security on these and other persons.
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Direct final rule and confirmation of effective date; corrections.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a document that published in the
The effective date of the direct final rule amending 21 CFR part 347, published June 13, 2003 (68 FR 35290), and confirmed October 9, 2003 (68 FR 58273), is corrected from October 27, 2003, to June 13, 2004.
Joyce Strong, Office of Policy (HF–27), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301–827–7010.
1. In FR Doc. 03–14818, published on June 13, 2003 (68 FR 35290), make the following correction: On page 35291, in the first column, under the
2. In FR Doc. 03-25648, published on October 9, 2003 (68 FR 58273), make the following correction: On page 58273, in the second column, under the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for the Houston Ship Channel and all associated turning basins including a portion of the San Jacinto River. This security zone is needed to protect vessels, waterfront facilities, the public, and other surrounding areas from destruction, loss, or injury caused by sabotage, subversive acts, accidents, or other actions of a similar nature performed by individuals or groups reacting to current world events. All vessels carrying Certain Dangerous Cargoes (CDCs) are prohibited from entering into, departing from or moving within the security zone unless authorized to do so by the Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston or a designated representative and escorted by a Coast Guard vessel. Additionally, vessels desiring to anchor or moor within the security zone must have permission from the Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on December 25, 2003, through 6 a.m. on March 1, 2004.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket [COTP Houston-Galveston–03–004] and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Houston-Galveston, 9640 Clinton Dr., Houston, TX 77029 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Commander (CDR) Thomas Marian, Commanding Officer, Vessel Traffic Service Houston/Galveston, Houston, TX at (713) 671–5164.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
On September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked both towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The President has continued the national emergencies that he declared following those attacks (68 FR 53665, Sep. 10, 2003, continuing the emergency declared with respect to terrorist attacks; 68 FR 55189, Sep. 18, 2003, continuing emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit or support terrorism). The President also has found pursuant to law, including the Magnuson Act (50 U.S.C. 191,
In response to those terrorist acts and current international events, heightened awareness for the security and safety of all vessels, ports, and harbors is necessary. This security zone is needed to protect vessels, waterfront facilities, the public, and other surrounding areas from destruction, loss, or injury caused by sabotage, subversive acts, accidents, or other actions of a similar nature performed by individuals or groups reacting to current world events.
The Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston is establishing a temporary security zone for the Houston Ship Channel between Morgans Point (that portion of the Houston Ship Channel north and west of a line drawn between Houston Ship Channel Lights 89A and 90A) and the entrance of Buffalo Bayou and adjoining waterways. This security zone is part of a comprehensive port security regime designed to safeguard human life, vessels, and waterfront facilities against sabotage or terrorist attacks.
All vessels carrying or controlling vessels carrying CDCs are prohibited from entering, leaving, or moving within the security zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston or designated representative and escorted by a Coast Guard vessel. To minimize the potential for vessels transporting CDCs to be delayed while waiting for a Coast Guard escort, it is highly recommended that those vessels contact the COTP Houston-Galveston at least four hours prior to the anticipated time they intend to enter, depart or move within the security zone. Additionally, it is strongly encouraged that vessels carrying or controlling vessels carrying CDCs plan their transits into, out of, and through the security zone to occur between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. daily as Coast Guard escort resources are limited during night-time periods. In Houston, vessels can contact the COTP through Vessel Traffic Service Houston/Galveston on VHF Channel 5A, by telephone at (713) 671–5103 or by facsimile at (713) 671–5159.
This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on December 25, 2003, through 6 a.m. on March 1, 2004.
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).
While vessels carrying or controlling another vessel carrying CDCs will need authorization to transit the zone, the Coast Guard expects minimal interference with or delay to their passage. Proactive measures that vessels carrying or controlling vessels carrying CDCs can take to minimize the potential for delays to occur are noted within this preamble. Notifications to the marine community will be made through broadcast notice to mariners.
This security zone is temporary in nature. The Coast Guard will issue an NPRM should it consider making this rule permanent.
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
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 may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the Houston Ship Channel and all associated turning basins including that portion of the San Jacinto River from its mouth north to the Interstate 10 highway bridge, bounded by a line drawn between Houston Ship Channel Light 89A (LLNR–23347) and Houston Ship Channel Light 90A (LLNR–23350) west to the T & N Rail Road Swing Bridge at the entrance to Buffalo Bayou, including all waters adjacent to the ship channel from shoreline to shoreline and the first 1000 yards of connecting waterways with the exception of the San Jacinto River as set forth above between 12:01 a.m. on December 25, 2003, through 6 a.m. on March 1, 2004. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons enumerated under the section entitled Regulatory Evaluation.
If you are a small business entity and are significantly affected by this regulation please contact CDR Thomas Marian, Vessel Traffic Service Houston/Galveston at (713) 671–5164.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such 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 may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. 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 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 final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(i) Division 1.1 or 1.2 explosives as defined in 49 CFR 173.50.
(ii) Division 1.5D blasting agents for which a permit is required under 49 CFR 176.415 or, for which a permit is required as a condition of a Research and Special Programs Administration exemption.
(iii) Division 2.3 “poisonous gas”, as listed in 49 CFR 172.101 that is also a “material poisonous by inhalation” as defined in 49 CFR 171.8, and that is in a quantity in excess of 1 metric ton per vessel or barge.
(iv) Division 5.1 oxidizing materials for which a permit is required under 49 CFR 176.415 or, for which a permit is required as a condition of a Research and Special Programs Administration exemption.
(v) A liquid material that has a primary or subsidiary classification of 6.1 “poisonous material” as listed in 49 CFR 172.101 that is also a “material poisonous by inhalation”, as defined in 49 CFR 171.8 and that is in a bulk packaging, or that is in a quantity in excess of 20 metric tons per vessel or barge when not in a bulk packaging.
(vi) Class 7, “highway route controlled quantity” radioactive material or “fissile material, controlled shipment”, as defined in 49 CFR 173.403.
(vii) Bulk liquefied chlorine gas and Bulk liquefied gas cargo that is flammable and/or toxic and carried under 46 CFR 154.7.
(viii) The following bulk liquids—
(A) Acetone cyanohydrin,
(B) Allyl alcohol,
(C) Chlorosulfonic acid,
(D) Crotonaldehyde,
(E) Ethylene chlorohydrin,
(F) Ethylene dibromide,
(G) Methacrylonitrile,
(H) Oleum (fuming sulfuric acid), and
(I) Propylene oxide.
(2)
(d)
(2) CDC vessels must request permission to enter into, depart from, move within, or remain in the security zone described in paragraph (a) of this section by contacting Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Houston/Galveston on VHF channel 5A, by telephone at (713) 671–5103, or by facsimile at (713) 671–5159.
(3) To avoid delays while waiting for a Coast Guard escort to arrive on scene, CDC vessels should contact VTS Houston/Galveston on VHF channel 5A, by telephone at (713) 671–5103, or by facsimile at (713) 671–5159 at least 4 hours prior to the time the CDC vessel anticipates entering into, departing from, or moving within the security zone. Additionally, as escort resources are limited during nighttime periods, it is highly recommended that CDC vessels only plan to transit into, out of, or through the security zone between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. daily.
(4) All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston and designated personnel. Designated personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for the Port of Texas City Channel, Turning Basin and Industrial Canal. This security zone is needed to protect vessels, waterfront facilities, the public, and other surrounding areas from destruction, loss, or injury caused by sabotage, subversive acts, accidents, or other actions of a similar nature performed by individuals or groups reacting to current world events. All vessels carrying Certain Dangerous Cargoes (CDCs) are prohibited from entering into, departing from or moving within the security zone unless authorized to do so by the Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on January 2, 2004, through 6 a.m. March 1, 2004.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket [COTP Houston-Galveston-03–005] and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Houston–Galveston, 9640 Clinton Dr., Houston, TX 77029 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Commander (CDR) Thomas Marian, Commanding Officer, Vessel Traffic Service Houston/Galveston, Houston, TX at (713) 671–5164.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
On September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked both towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The President has continued the national emergencies that he declared following those attacks
In response to those terrorist acts and current international events, heightened awareness for the security and safety of all vessels, ports, and harbors is necessary. This security zone is needed to protect vessels, waterfront facilities, the public, and other surrounding areas from destruction, loss, or injury caused by sabotage, subversive acts, accidents, or other actions of a similar nature performed by individuals or groups reacting to current world events.
The Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston is establishing a temporary security zone for Port of Texas City Channel, Turning Basin and Industrial Canal containing all waters within the area south and west of a line drawn between Texas City Channel Light 19 (LLNR–24810) through Cut B Inner Range Front Light (LLNR–24765) and terminating on land in position 29°23′16″ N, 095°53′15″ W (NAD 83). This security zone is part of a comprehensive port security regime designed to safeguard human life, vessels, and waterfront facilities against sabotage or terrorist attacks.
All vessels carrying or controlling vessels carrying CDCs are prohibited from entering, leaving or moving within the security zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston or designated representative. To minimize the potential for vessels transporting CDCs to be delayed, it is highly recommended that those vessels contact the COTP Houston-Galveston at least 4 hours prior to the anticipated time they intend to enter, depart or move within the security zone. In Houston, vessels can contact the COTP through Vessel Traffic Service Houston/Galveston on VHF Channel 5A, by telephone at (713) 671–5103 or by facsimile at (713) 671–5159.
This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on January 2, 2004, through 6 a.m. March 1, 2004.
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).
While vessels carrying or controlling another vessel carrying CDCs will need authorization to transit the zone, the Coast Guard expects minimal interference with or delay to their passage. Proactive measures that vessels carrying or controlling vessels carrying CDCs can take to minimize the potential for delays to occur are noted within this preamble. Notifications to the marine community will be made through broadcast notice to mariners.
This security zone is temporary in nature. The Coast Guard will issue an NPRM should it consider making this rule permanent.
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 may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the Port of Texas City Channel, Turning Basin and Industrial Canal containing all waters within the area south and west of a line drawn between Texas City Channel Light 19 (LLNR–24810) through Cut B Inner Range Front Light (LLNR–24765) and terminating on land in position 29°23′16″ N, 095°53′15″ W (NAD 83) between 12:01 a.m. on January 2, 2004, through 6 a.m. March 1, 2004. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons enumerated under the section entitled Regulatory Evaluation.
If you are a small business entity and are significantly affected by this regulation please contact CDR Thomas Marian, Vessel Traffic Service Houston/Galveston at (713) 671–5164.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such 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 may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. 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 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 final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(i) Division 1.1 or 1.2 explosives as defined in 49 CFR 173.50.
(ii) Division 1.5D blasting agents for which a permit is required under 49 CFR 176.415 or, for which a permit is required as a condition of a Research and Special Programs Administration exemption.
(iii) Division 2.3 “poisonous gas”, as listed in 49 CFR 172.101 that is also a “material poisonous by inhalation” as defined in 49 CFR 171.8, and that is in a quantity in excess of 1 metric ton per vessel or barge.
(iv) Division 5.1 oxidizing materials for which a permit is required under 49 CFR 176.415 or, for which a permit is required as a condition of a Research and Special Programs Administration exemption.
(v) A liquid material that has a primary or subsidiary classification of 6.1 “poisonous material” as listed in 49 CFR 172.101 that is also a “material poisonous by inhalation”, as defined in 49 CFR 171.8 and that is in a bulk packaging, or that is in a quantity in excess of 20 metric tons per vessel or barge when not in a bulk packaging.
(vi) Class 7, “highway route controlled quantity” radioactive material or “fissile material, controlled shipment”, as defined in 49 CFR 173.403.
(vii) Bulk liquefied chlorine gas and Bulk liquefied gas cargo that is flammable and/or toxic and carried under 46 CFR 154.7.
(viii) The following bulk liquids:
(A) Acetone cyanohydrin,
(B) Allyl alcohol,
(C) Chlorosulfonic acid,
(D) Crotonaldehyde,
(E) Ethylene chlorohydrin,
(F) Ethylene dibromide,
(G) Methacrylonitrile,
(H) Oleum (fuming sulfuric acid), and
(I) Propylene oxide.
(2)
(d)
(2) CDC vessels must request permission to enter into, depart from, move within, or remain in the security zone described in paragraph (a) of this section by contacting Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Houston/Galveston on VHF channel 5A, by telephone at (713) 671–5103, or by facsimile at (713) 671–5159.
(3) To avoid transit delays, CDC vessels should contact VTS Houston/Galveston on VHF channel 5A, by telephone at (713) 671–5103, or by facsimile at (713) 671–5159 at least 4 hours prior to the time the CDC vessel anticipates entering into, departing from, or moving within the security zone.
(4) All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston and designated personnel. Designated personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Governor of Montana on June 26, 1997, and June 13, 2000, as meeting the requirements for moderate PM–10 nonattainment areas contained in Part D of the Clean Air Act. (Portions of the June 26, 1997, submittal were withdrawn by the Governor of Montana on February 28, 1999. We are only acting on the portions of the June 26, 1997, submittal that were not withdrawn.) These revisions contain an inventory of emissions for Thompson Falls and establish and require continuation of all control measures adopted and implemented for reductions of particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM
This final rule is effective February 23, 2004.
Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466 and copies of the Incorporation by Reference material at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room B–108 (Mail Code 6102T), 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Copies of the State documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection at the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Air and Waste Management Bureau, 1520 E. 6th Avenue, Helena, Montana 59620.
Laurel Dygowski, EPA, Region 8, (303) 312–6144.
On November 19, 2003 (68 FR 65229), we proposed to approve SIP revisions submitted by the Governor of Montana on June 26, 1997, and June 13, 2000, as meeting the requirements for moderate PM–10 nonattainment areas contained in Part D of the Clean Air Act.
We received no comment on our November 19, 2003, notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA is approving State Implementation Plan revisions submitted by the Governor of Montana on June 26, 1997, and June 13, 2000. The June 26, 1997, submittal contains the Thompson Falls Air Pollution Control Plan and an emissions inventory for the Thompson Falls PM
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),
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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(60) On June 26, 1997, the Governor of Montana submitted the Thompson Falls Air Pollution Control Plan and on June 13, 2000, the Governor submitted revisions to the June 26, 1997, submittal. On February 28, 1999, the Governor of Montana withdrew all chapters of the Thompson Falls Air Pollution Control Plan submitted on June 26, 1997, except chapters 45.2, 45.10.10, and 45.10.12. EPA is approving sections 45.2, 45.10.10 and 45.10.12 of the Thompson Falls Air Pollution Control Plan.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Board Order issued June 20, 1997, by the Montana Board of Environmental Review, as reprinted in section 45.2.2 of the Thompson Falls Air Pollution Control Plan. The Board Order adopts and incorporates the May 1997 Maintenance Agreement Between the City of Thompson Falls, Montana Department of Transportation, and Montana Department of Environmental Quality which contains the control plan for the attainment and maintenance of the PM–10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards in the Thompson Falls area.
(B) May 1997 Maintenance Agreement between the City of Thompson Falls, Montana Department of Transportation, and Montana Department of Environmental Quality, as reprinted in section 45.2.1 of the Thompson Falls Air Pollution Control Plan.
(ii) Additional Material.
(A) Sections 45.2, 45.10.10 and 45.10.12 of the Thompson Falls Air Pollution Control Plan.
(b) As part of the Thompson Falls Air Pollution Control Plan (approved at § 52.1370(c)(60)), the Governor of Montana submitted a PM–10 emission inventory for the Thompson Falls area as a SIP revision. The PM–10 emission inventory covers the time period of July 1, 1990 through June 30, 1991.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in the
This rule is effective on February 23, 2004.
You can inspect copies of the administrative record for this action at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours by appointment. You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions by appointment at the following locations:
A copy of the rule may also be available via the Internet at
Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at either(415) 947–4111, or
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
On April 25, 2003 (68 FR 20356), EPA proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of the following rules that were submitted for incorporation into the California SIP.
We proposed a limited approval because we determined that these rules improve the SIP and are largely consistent with the relevant CAA requirements. Simultaneously, we proposed a limited disapproval because some provisions within each rule conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act. These provisions are reviewed below.
Within SJVUAPCD Rule 4623, the provisions discussed below conflict with section 110 of the Act and raise enforceability issues preventing EPA's full approval of the SIP revision.
• Section 5.6.1 is unclear on two points. First, it references requirements in section 6.4.6; these requirements are unclear in how they apply to section 5.6.1. For example, no VOC control requirement is clearly specified. Second, a typographical error exists in how section 5.6.1 references either section 6.4.6 or section 6.4.7.
• Section 7.1 has a missing compliance date and conflicting dates in its last sentence.
Within YSAQMD Rule 2.21, the provisions discussed below conflict with section 110 of the Act and raise rule enforceability issues preventing EPA's full approval of the SIP revision. In part, Rule 2.21's deficiencies relate to an EPA policy described within a memorandum dated September 20, 1999, entitled “State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Start-up, and Shutdown” (the Excess Emissions Policy).
Taken together section 111 and section 501 are inconsistent with the EPA policy on exemptions for excess emissions during malfunctions, start-up and shutdown. Furthermore, the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) discretion within section 111 for approving maintenance plans is a case of unbounded “director's discretion” as there are no criteria delimiting the APCO's authority for approving maintenance plans. These provisions violate EPA requirements concerning enforceability and and rule relaxations.
Our proposed action contains more information on the basis for this rulemaking and on our evaluation of these submittals.
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments on our proposed action.
No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is finalizing a limited approval of the submitted rules. This action incorporates the submitted rules into the California SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3), EPA is finalizing simultaneously a limited disapproval of each rule. As a result, sanctions will be imposed unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that correct each rule's deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of this action. These sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the Act according to 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, EPA must promulgate a Federal implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless we approve subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies within 24 months. Note SJVUAPCD Rule 4623 and YSAQMD Rule 2.21 have been adopted by these local air districts, and EPA's final limited disapproval does not prevent the local agency from enforcing it. Also, please note that the sanctions process for each of these rules is separate and distinct from the other; none of the language above should be construed otherwise.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”
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 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal
Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it 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. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.
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
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(297) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) * * *
(
(303) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Tennessee on July 29, 2003. The revision corrects a deficiency identified by EPA in its August 14, 2002, conditional approval of Tennessee's Phase I NO
EPA proposed to approve Tennessee's NO
This final rule is effective January 22, 2004.
Copies of documents relative to this action are available at the following addresses for inspection during normal business hours:
Anne Marie Hoffman, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The telephone number is (404) 562–9074. Ms. Hoffman can also be reached via electronic mail at
On November 7, 2000, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) submitted a draft NO
EPA is approving revisions to Tennessee's SIP concerning the adoption of its NO
EPA is approving this action because Tennessee's NO
On October 27, 1998, EPA published a final rule entitled, “Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone,” otherwise known as the “NO
EPA's model NO
The final NO
EPA has evaluated Tennessee's July 29, 2003, SIP submittal and finds it approvable. The Tennessee NO
On November 7, 2000, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation submitted a draft NO
Tennessee's rule, as in the model rule, allows the large EGUs and non-EGUs to participate in the multi-state cap and trade program. For detailed information refer to the proposal document (67 FR 52913).
Tennessee chose to revise the provisions in section 96.40 (State trading program budget) of the model rule by adding a provision at 1200–3–27–.06(1)(f) to allow for the allocation of additional allowances for NO
Tennessee's Rule 1200–3–27–.04
Tennessee's submittal demonstrates that the Phase I NO
To provide additional flexibility for complying with emission control requirements associated with the NO
Part 96 requires that new sources hold allowances to cover their emissions. For detailed information refer to the proposal document.
EPA has determined that today's rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately. Because the NO
EPA is approving the Tennessee's SIP revision consisting of its draft NO
EPA originally proposed to approve Tennessee's NO
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. section 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from food product manufacturing and processing, recordkeeping for VOC sources, and particulate matter (PM) emissions from woodworking operations. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
This rule is effective on March 22, 2004 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 23, 2004. If we receive such comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Send comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901, or e-mail to steckel.andrew@epa.gov, or submit comments at
You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions, EPA's technical support documents (TSDs), and public comments at our Region IX office during normal business hours by appointment. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revisions by appointment at the following locations:
A copy of the rule may also be available via the Internet at
Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at either (415) 947–4111, or
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
EPA found these rule submittals met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V on the following dates: October 10, 2003 for Rule 1131; October 10, 2003 for Rule 109, and February 7, 2003 for Rule 1137. These completeness criteria must be met before formal EPA review can begin.
There are previous versions of Rules 1131 and 109 in the SIP. We gave a limited approval and limited disapproval to Rule 1131 on June 26, 2002 (see 67 FR 43004) and we gave a full approval to Rule 109 on February 12, 2002 (see 67 FR 6410). CARB has made no intervening submittals of either Rule 1131 or Rule 109 since these last EPA actions. There is no version of Rule 1137 in the SIP as it has not be submitted to EPA in the past. There have been no subsequent submittals of Rule 1137 since CARB's November 2002 submittal to EPA.
VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Similarly, PM–10 (particulate matter less than 10 microns) causes a wide range of health problems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC and PM–10 emissions.
SCAQMD Rule 1131 specifies the VOC content of solvents used in food product manufacturing and to clean and sterilize the equipment used in the manufacturing process. SCAQMD's June 6, 2003 amendments to Rule 1131 concerned these sections:
SCAQMD Rule 109 establishes recordkeeping requirements for stationary sources that use coatings, adhesives, solvents and graphic arts materials. Rule 109 is referenced by many industry-specific prohibitory rules in SCAQMD's 1100 series. SCAQMD's amendments to the SIP-approved version of Rule 109 are summarized below.
SCAQMD Rule 1137 is designed to limit particulate matter (PM) emissions at woodworking operations such as lumbermills, furniture manufacturers, cabinet shops, and sash and door manufacturers. The rule requires that woodworking operations send sawdust emissions either directly to a baghouse filter, or to a pneumatic conveyance device that leads to a baghouse filter. These woodworking operations must either maintain, or have implemented these controls by July 1, 2002.
The TSD has more information about these rules.
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). VOC prohibitory rules must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A)). Similarly, PM prohibitory rules must require Reasonably Available Control Methods (RACM) and Best Available Control Methods (BACM) for major sources and significant source categories in serious PM nonattainment areas (see section 189 (a) and (b)). The SCAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rules 1131 and 109 must fulfill RACT. SCAQMD regulates a serious PM nonattainment area; however, Rule 1137 need not fufill RACM or BACM given its lack of RACM or BACM status within the SCAQMD PM attainment plan. Rule 1137 is only a listed control measure in that plan and need only be approvable as meeting enforceability guidelines.
Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate specific enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the following:
We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The revisions to Rule 1131 deleting section (c)(1)(C) addresses the deficiency providing cause for our 2002 limited disapproval action. The TSDs have more information on our respective evaluation of each rule.
We have no suggestions for additional rule revisions that do not affect EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local agency modifies the rules.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
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. section 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. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(307) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
(
(320) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
(
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule, correction.
This document corrects errors in the dates section and the supplementary information section of a
Effective January 22, 2004.
Shannon Lipp, Attorney, (202) 418–7400 or Regina Brown, Attorney, (202) 418–7400, Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division.
This summary contains corrections to the dates section and the supplementary information section of a
In rule FR Doc. 03–31683 published December 24, 2003 (68 FR 74492) make the following corrections.
1. On page 74492, in the third column, in the
2. On page 74502, in the first column, in paragraph 69, fourth line, remove “§ 54.609(A)(3)(ii)” and add “§ 54.609(d)(2)” in its place.
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Final rule.
The Department of Transportation's Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance (ODAPC) is adding drug and alcohol abuse counselors certified by the National Board for Certified Counselors, Inc. and Affiliates (NBCC), specifically NBCC's Master Addictions Counselor (MAC), to those eligible to be substance abuse professionals (SAPs) under subpart O of 49 CFR part 40.
This rule is effective January 22, 2004.
Jim L. Swart, Drug and Alcohol Policy Advisor at (202) 366–3784 (voice), (202) 366–3897 (fax), or at
The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 required that an opportunity for treatment be made available to covered employees. To implement this requirement in its alcohol and drug testing rules issued in February 1994, the Department of Transportation (DOT) established the role of the “substance abuse professional” (SAP). The Department's regulation—49 CFR part 40–requires an employer to provide a covered employee, who engages in conduct prohibited by DOT agency drug and alcohol regulations, a listing of qualified SAPs. In addition, the regulation requires the employee to be evaluated by a SAP and to demonstrate successful compliance with the SAP's evaluation recommendations for education and/or treatment prior to being considered for returning to any DOT safety-sensitive position.
The Department considers the SAP to be the “Gatekeeper” for the return-to-duty process. The SAP represents the major decision point an employer may have in choosing whether or not to place an employee back to safety-sensitive duties following a DOT regulation violation. The SAP is responsible for several duties important to the evaluation, referral, and treatment of employees who have engaged in prohibited drug and alcohol related conduct. The job a SAP accomplishes as “Gatekeeper” provides vital help to the employee, the employer, and to the traveling public.
In order to be permitted to act as a SAP in the DOT drug and alcohol testing program, in addition to meeting basic knowledge, training and examination, and continuing education requirements, a person must have one of the following credentials:
(1) Licensed physician;
(2) Licensed or certified social worker;
(3) Licensed or certified psychologist;
(4) Licensed or certified employee assistance professional; or
(5) Drug and alcohol counselor certified by the National Association of Drug Abuse Counselors Certification Commission (NAADAC) or by the International Certification Reciprocity Consortium/Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (ICRC).
Part 40, at § 40.283, details how a certification organization wishing to obtain recognition for its members as SAPs can submit to the Department a written petition requesting a review of that petition. The Department stipulates that the organization must first obtain National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) accreditation through the National Organization for Competency Assurance (NOCA) and meet the requirements of appendix E to part 40. The petition must fully show proof of the organization's meeting these review prerequisites.
The National Board for Certified Counselors, Inc. and Affiliates, 3 Terrace Way, Suite D, Greensboro, NC 27403–3660, petitioned the DOT for inclusion of its MAC as one of the SAP credentials. Upon receipt of the petition, the DOT began a thorough review of the NBCC proposal, to include substantive information documentation and demonstration of the 12 items in appendix E to part 40. In addition, the Department obtained corroboration from appropriate sources that the information provided by NBCC was valid.
Relative to the criteria established by the Department for certifying organizations, the NBCC MAC credential was accredited by the NCCA certification and accreditation process and that accreditation is currently in good standing. The Department used its collaborative relationship with NOCA to ensure that the focus of the NBCC's MAC examination was on substance abuse, and we used that relationship to further ensure that NCCA's accreditation standards were met. In addition to meeting the NCCA accreditation standards, NBCC had to meet the part 40 requirements at appendix E. The NBCC MAC credential process met or exceeded all DOT requirements.
The results of our evaluation supports the conclusion that NBCC has rigorous standards in place and their MAC credential warrants inclusion as an appropriate SAP credential in the Department's drug and alcohol testing regulation. Their program requirements and certification process meet the rigorous requirements of NCCA accreditation. Their standards also satisfy the Department's equally rigorous requirements at appendix E to 49 CFR part 40. Therefore, after careful review of NBCC's petition, supporting documentation, and certification procedures, NBCC's certified MACs will be recognized as eligible to be SAPs.
This rule is not a significant rule for purposes of Executive Order 12866 or
The Department is issuing this as a final rule without opportunity for notice and public comment. The Department determined that doing so would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest because the parameters for the Department's decisions with regard to counselor certification groups have been long established in part 40 and have been amply commented upon previously. In addition, our review, verification, and corroboration process of NBCC's petition and documentation were very comprehensive and followed the review criteria in appendix E to part 40. Finally, an immediate increase in the number of those counselors eligible to become SAPs will be realized within the transportation industries near to part 40's SAP “qualification training” deadline, which was December 31, 2003.
For the same good cause and reasons stated in the above paragraph, the Department is issuing this final rule with an immediate effective date rather than one 30 days from date of publication.
Administrative practice and procedures, Alcohol abuse, Alcohol testing, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Laboratories, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.
49 U.S.C. 102, 301, 322, 5331, 20140, 31306, and 45102
(a) * * *
(5) You are a drug and alcohol counselor certified by the National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors Certification Commission (NAADAC); or by the International Certification Reciprocity Consortium/Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (ICRC); or by the National Board for Certified Counselors, Inc. and Affiliates/Master Addictions Counselor (NBCC).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, determine endangered status pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, for the Rota bridled white-eye (
This rule is effective February 23, 2004.
The administrative file for this rule is available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3–122, Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850.
To request copies of regulations on listed species, or for inquiries on prohibitions and permits, write or visit the Service's Portland Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Permits, 911 NE., 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232–4181.
Gina Shultz, Assistant Field Supervisor, at the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (
Endangered Species, Portland Office (
The Rota bridled white-eye (
The Rota bridled white-eye is a small flocking bird in the Family
All of the bridled white-eyes in Micronesia, including the Rota bridled white-eye, were placed under one species,
Rota bridled white-eyes are primarily found in native forests and introduced
Rota bridled white-eyes are highly gregarious and are often observed foraging in small groups of five to seven birds (Craig and Taisacan 1994). These foraging groups sometimes include rufous fantails (
Very little is known about the breeding biology of the Rota bridled white-eye. Twenty-three nests have been recorded (Yamashina 1932; Pratt 1985; Lusk and Taisacan 1997; Amidon 2000), and the discovery dates of these nests indicate that the breeding season extends at least from December to August. However, a year-round breeding season may be more likely, as indicated by breeding records of bridled white-eye species and subspecies (Marshall 1949; Jenkins 1983). Clutches from four Rota bridled white-eye nests consisted of one to two light blue eggs (Yamashina 1932; Amidon 2000). Observations of 7 active nests by Amidon (2000) indicate incubation and nestling periods of at least 10 and up to 12 days, and observations of 1 banded nestling indicates a fledgling period of at least 8 days. Nests were found above 320 m (1,056 ft) elevation in oschal, yoga, faniok, and sosugi trees with diameter at breast height (dbh) between 23 cm (9 in) and 60.2 cm (24 in) (Pratt 1985; Lusk and Taisacan 1997; Amidon 2000). Rota bridled white-eye nests were commonly suspended between branchlets and leaf petioles and were composed of rootlets, woven grass or
Very little is known about the past distribution and abundance of bridled white-eyes on Rota. Early descriptions by Baker (1948) described this species as numerous and found at lower elevations. Residents of Rota during the post-World War II years also remember seeing white-eyes at low elevations in Songsong Village (Engbring
In 1977, a bird survey, conducted only on the Sabana, estimated Rota bridled white-eye densities to be 22 birds/km
The forest in these four high-density areas can be described as a type of cloud forest, with growths of epiphytic ferns and orchids, because of the cloud buildup over the Sabana region (Fosberg 1960; Falanruw
Currently, 85 percent of the Rota bridled white-eye population occurs on public lands and 15 percent occurs on private lands. There is no U.S. Government-owned land in the CNMI; all public lands are administered by the Mariana Public Land Authority for people of Mariana Island descent. Approximately 60 percent of the land on Rota is administered by the Mariana Public Land Authority, although much of it has been leased to private individuals.
The Rota bridled white-eye is listed as a critically endangered species in the most recent list of threatened animals of the world by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) (2002). The IUCN list provides an assessment of the conservation status of species on a global scale in order to highlight species threatened with extinction and, therefore, promote their conservation. According to the IUCN, a critically endangered species is one facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future. Also, in 1991, the CNMI government listed the Rota bridled white-eye as threatened or endangered (the CNMI makes no distinction between the threatened and endangered categories).
Federal action on the Rota bridled white-eye began when we published a
In the November 15, 1994, Notice of Review (59 FR 58982), the Rota bridled white-eye was moved from a Category 2 candidate to a Category 1 candidate for Federal listing. Category 1 species were those for which we had on file substantial information on biological vulnerability and threats to support preparations of listing proposals, but for which listing proposals had not yet been published because they were precluded by other listing activities.
In the February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7596), and September 19, 1997 (62 FR 49398), Candidate Notices of Review, we discontinued category designations and listed the Rota bridled white-eye was listed as a candidate species. We define candidate species as those for which we have sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list the species as threatened or endangered.
On August 29, 2001, a settlement agreement was announced between the Service, the Center for Biological Diversity, and others regarding endangered species litigation. The terms of agreement required that the Service submit to the
In the proposed rule (66 FR 50383), we requested that all interested parties submit comments on the proposal. We also contacted all appropriate Commonwealth and Federal agencies, local governments, landowners, and other interested parties and invited them to comment. The comment period closed on December 3, 2001 (66 FR 50383).
During the public comment period, we received five comment letters. Commenters included one Federal agency, two organizations, and two individuals. We did not receive any comments from State agencies. In total, none of the commenters opposed the listing, three supported the listing, and two were neutral.
This final rule incorporates and addresses comments and information we received during the comment period. We address substantive comments concerning the rule below. Comments of a similar nature are grouped together.
In accordance with our July 1, 1994, Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities (59 FR 43270), we solicited the expert opinions of three independent specialists regarding pertinent scientific or commercial data and assumptions relating to the taxonomy, population status, and supporting biological and ecological information for the Rota bridled white-eye. The purpose of such review is to ensure that listing decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses, including input of appropriate experts and specialists. Information and suggestions provided by reviewers were incorporated or addressed as applicable.
We received peer reviews from three experts. All agreed that the Rota bridled white-eye is imperiled throughout its range, and that the proposed rule was based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis. These experts' comments are incorporated in the final rule and summarized in the following responses to comments.
Section 4 of the Act and our regulations issued to implement the Act's listing provisions (50 CFR part 424) establish the procedures for adding species to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species. We may determine a species to be endangered or threatened due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. These factors and their application to the Rota bridled white-eye are as follows:
A.
Although the habitat in the limestone forest may be threatened by development, the majority of the high-elevation forests on the Sabana have not been subjected to development and large-scale clearing in the past because of their rugged topography. The forests have, however, received extensive typhoon damage in recent years, which has increased fragmentation and reduced the availability of breeding and foraging habitat. In 1988, typhoon Roy hit Rota with winds of over 241 kilometers per hour (150 miles per hour) and completely defoliated almost all of the forests of Rota (Fancy and Snetsinger 1996). In some areas, 50 percent of the trees were downed, and 100 percent of the trees suffered limb damage. The wet forests of the upper cliffline were drastically altered by this storm and have been heavily degraded (Fancy and Snetsinger 2001; Derrickson,
Although land clearing on the Sabana has been limited, it may have played a part in the extent of typhoon damage to the forests on the Sabana. Clearings increased forest fragmentation on the Sabana, and thus increased the amount of forest edge, especially in the center and this increased forest exposure to typhoon damage. Probably the damage caused by typhoons might not have been as extensive if the forests on the Sabana had not been fragmented by land clearing.
B.
C.
Craig and Taisacan (1994) believe that a relationship exists between the abundance and distribution of black drongos and the decline and range restriction of the Rota bridled white-eye. Engbring
Not all researchers agree that the black drongo was the main factor in the decline and range restriction of the Rota bridled white-eye. Maben (1982) found that, although they would harass other birds on Guam, black drongos did not regularly attempt to prey on them. Birds have also been reported to forage within black drongo territories and nest near active black drongo nests without harassment (Ali and Ripley 1972; Shukkur and Joseph 1980; Maben 1982). Michael Lusk of the Service (unpublished data) observed no interactions between black drongos and Rota bridled white-eyes during a 1993–1994 study of their interactions on Rota (cited in Fancy and Snetsinger 1996). In addition, Amidon (2000) observed only one black drongo predation on a Rota bridled white-eye over 11 months, despite efforts to record observations of black drongo predation on Rota bridled white-eyes. However, it is possible that black drongo predation or harassment, in combination with other factors, such as habitat loss, may be limiting the Rota bridled white-eye population (Amidon 2000; Fancy and Snetsinger 2001).
The brown treesnake (
Two species of introduced rat, Asian house rat (
Avian disease has also been implicated as a potential factor in the population decline and range restriction of the Rota bridled white-eye. In Hawaii, research has indicated that avian disease was a significant factor in the decline and distributional change of the native avifauna (van Riper
D.
In addition to listing the species, the CNMI has also designated a protected area on the Sabana in 1994 through Rota Local Law No. 9–1 (Sabana Protected Area Management Committee 1996). A plan was developed to manage this protected area as part of an effort by the CNMI government to limit development in this upper elevation area (Sabana Protected Area Management Committee 1996). Zones of activities have been designated for the protected area, with rules established for each zone. A number of activities are allowed to occur in the protected area in certain zones, such as farming, hunting, forestry, and medicinal use of plants. Many of these activities require a permit from the CNMI Department of Lands and Natural Resources. Conservation zones within the protected area have been established in areas critical to the continued survival of bats on Rota (Sabana Protected Area Management Committee 1996). These conservation zones also correspond to most of the current range of the Rota bridled white-eye. However, vegetation that is 15 cm (6 in) diameter at breast height or less may be permitted to be removed in certain zones, including the bat conservation zone. Removal of this vegetation may have negative effects on Rota bridled white-eye nesting and foraging habitat. While preservation of these forested areas is believed to also be essential for the long-term stability of the Rota bridled white-eye, not all of its habitat occurs within the Sabana Protected Area. In the As Rosalia area, there are plans for projects such as agricultural homesteads and resort development. Since the Rota bridled white-eye is not protected from take as a CNMI-listed species, and since the Sabana Protected Area affords minimal habitat protection for this species, regulatory mechanisms to protect this species are inadequate.
E.
The small population size and limited distribution of the Rota bridled white-eye places this species at risk from naturally occurring events and environmental factors. In particular, typhoons pose a serious threat, directly and indirectly, to the white-eye and other avian populations (Wiley and Wunderle 1993). This threat can also be exacerbated by human land-use practices, which can affect the extent of damage caused by these storms (
In making this determination, we have carefully evaluated the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by this species. Based on this evaluation, we are listing the Rota bridled white-eye as endangered. The Rota bridled white-eye is endemic to the island of Rota, and its population has declined an estimated 89 percent from 1982 to 1996. This species is threatened by one or more of the following: habitat degradation or loss due to development, agricultural activities, and naturally occurring events such as typhoons; predation by black drongos and rats; and inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms. The small population size and limited distribution make this species particularly vulnerable to extinction from random environmental events. Because the Rota bridled white-eye is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, it fits the definition of endangered as defined in the Act.
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the (i) specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species, and (II) that may require special management considerations or protection, and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. “Conservation” means the use of all methods and procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
Section 4 of the Act and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424 part 12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be endangered or threatened unless publishing the listing rule more promptly is essential to the conservation of the species. Our implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)) state that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist: (1) the species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
We find that designating critical habitat is prudent for the Rota bridled white-eye. Consistent with applicable regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)(i)) and recent case law, we do not expect that the identification of critical habitat will increase the degree of threat to this species of taking or other human activity. In the absence of a finding that critical habitat would increase threats to a species, if any benefits would result from critical habitat designation, then a prudent finding is warranted. In the case of this species, some benefits may result from designating critical habitat. The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the section 7 requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any action that destroys or adversely modifies critical habitat. While a critical habitat designation for habitat currently occupied by this species may not change the section 7 consultation outcome because an action that destroys or adversely modifies such critical habitat is also likely to result in jeopardy to the species, in some instances a section 7 consultation would be triggered only if critical habitat is designated (
Section 4(b)(6)(C) of the Act states that the final critical habitat designation shall be published with the final listing determination unless “(i) it is essential to the conservation of such species that the regulation implementing such determination be promptly published. * * *” The Rota bridled white-eye has declined by approximately 90% since 1982 and is currently threatened by one or more of the following: habitat degradation or loss due to development, agricultural activities, and naturally occurring events such as typhoons; predation; and inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms. The small population size and limited distribution make this species particularly vulnerable to extinction from random environmental events. Nearly all of our listing funds are being used to comply with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements to complete listing determinations or petition findings, we were unable to additionally propose critical habitat with the proposal to list this species and the final listing rule. We will develop a proposal to designate critical habitat for the Rota bridled white-eye as soon as funding is available and in accordance with other priority listing actions.
Conservation measures provided to endangered or threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing encourages and may result in conservation actions by Federal, State, and local agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The Act authorizes possible land acquisition and cooperation with “States,” including the CNMI, and requires that recovery plans be developed for all listed species. Funding is available through section 6 of the Act for the CNMI to conduct recovery activities. We discuss the protection required of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm for the Rota bridled white-eye below.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened, and also with respect to its critical habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with us on any action that is likely to (a) jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing or (b) result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
Federal agency actions that may affect the Rota bridled white-eye and may require consultation with us include, but are not limited to, those within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Aviation Administration, and Federal Highway Administration.
There are no federally owned lands on the island of Rota. Parts of Rota have been used as, or are under consideration for use as, training areas by U.S. armed forces. In the past, some military training has occurred at the Rota airport and on Angyuta, an island near the commercial port. Neither area is within the known range of the Rota bridled white-eye. Federally supported activities that could affect the Rota bridled white-eye or its habitat in the future include, but are not limited to, low-altitude helicopter maneuvers, road construction and improvements, and radio tower construction within areas occupied by the Rota bridled white-eye.
Listing the Rota bridled white-eye necessitates the development and implementation of a recovery plan for the species. This plan will bring together Federal, Commonwealth, and regional agency efforts for conservation of the species, and will also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts. It will set recovery priorities and estimate the costs of the tasks necessary to accomplish the priorities. It will also describe the site-specific management actions necessary to achieve conservation and survival of the species.
The Act and implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered species, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or collect; or attempt any of these), import or export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of a commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Further, it is illegal for any person to attempt to commit, to solicit another person to commit, or to cause to be committed, any of these acts. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and CNMI conservation agencies.
Permits may be issued to allow people and groups to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23. Such permits are available for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in the course of otherwise lawful activities. Permits are also available for zoological exhibitions, educational purposes, or special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act. Requests for copies of the regulations regarding listed wildlife and inquiries about permits and prohibitions may be addressed to the Service's Portland offices (
It is our policy, as published in the
Activities that we believe could potentially harm the Rota bridled white-eye, and would likely violate section 9, include, but are not limited to:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, transporting, or shipping of the species;
(2) Intentional introduction of alien species that compete with or prey on bird species, such as the introduction of the predatory brown treesnake to islands that support bird populations; and
(3) Activities that disturb Rota bridled white-eyes and disrupt nesting and foraging, and destruction or alteration of forested areas required by the bridled white-eye for foraging, perching, breeding, or rearing young.
Questions regarding whether specific activities will constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Field Supervisor of the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (
We have determined that an Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Assessment, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is available upon request from the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (
The primary author of this final rule is Fred Amidon, Biologist, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) proposes to amend the regulation utilized to administer the technical assistance grant programs. This action is necessary to separate the technical assistance and training grant and solid waste management grant programs for clarification purposes and to bring the regulation in line with revisions to OMB circulars. Additionally, it eliminates the requirement that applicants submit a pre-application when applying for grant funds. This action also transfers grant processing and servicing from the National Office to Rural Development State Offices. The intended effect is to separate the technical assistance and solid waste management programs and to reduce regulatory burdens on applicants.
Written comments must be received by RUS or bear a postmark or equivalent, no later than March 22, 2004. Comments regarding the information and record keeping requirements must be received by March 22, 2004.
Written comments should be sent to Richard Annan, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 5168–S, STOP 1522, Washington, DC 20250–1522. RUS requires a signed original and three copies of all comments (7 CFR 1700.4). Comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)).
Stephen Saulnier, Loan Specialist, Water Programs Division, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 2235–S, Stop 1570, Washington, DC 20250–1570. Telephone (202) 690–2526. E-mail:
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This rule is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Consultation, which may require consultation with State and local officials.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. RUS has determined that this proposed rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of the Executive Order. In addition all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted; no retroactive effect will be given to the rule; and, in accordance with section 212(e) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912(e)) administrative appeal procedures, if any are required, must be exhausted prior to initiating any action against the Department or its agencies.
Under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), RUS certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The amendments reflect only statutory changes that Congress has mandated and over which the Agency has no discretion.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) RUS is requesting comments on the information collection incorporated in this proposed rule.
Comments on this information collection must be received by March 22, 2004.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the 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 including the validity of the methodology and assumption used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The primary reasons for the promulgation of the proposed revisions to this rule were changes in the OMB circulars affecting these programs and changes in the way the programs have developed since inception.
The proposed rule will provide a general section for the requirements that are the same for both grant programs and separate sections for the requirements unique to each grant program. This will clarify both the similarities and the differences in the programs and provide a clearer understanding of the requirements of each.
RUS applicants would submit an application for consideration of grant funding, and if selected for funding, submit quarterly reports, as prescribed by the rule. The burden will vary depending on the type of project proposed for funding under the programs, which would then prescribe
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Michele Brooks, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service. Telephone: (202) 690–1078.
Send comments regarding this information collection requirement to Richard Annan, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 4034, Stop 1522, Washington, DC 20250–1522.
Comments are best assured of having full effect if received within 30 days of publication in the
The Administrator of RUS has determined that this proposed rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
The programs described by this proposed rule are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs under numbers 10.761, Technical Assistance and Training Grants and 10.762, Solid Waste Management Grants. This catalog is available on a subscription basis from the Superintendent of Documents, the United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402–9325, telephone number (202) 512–1800.
This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provision of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Thus this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
On November 2, 1987, the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) (predecessor of RUS) published 7 CFR part 1942, subpart J, Technical Assistance and Training Grants, as a final rule in the
The existing 7 CFR part 1775 was designed to provide policy and procedures for RUS's technical assistance and training grants and solid waste management grants in addition to the agency's internal administrative actions. There has been some confusion as to the basic differences in the programs, especially pertaining to eligibility. To avoid confusion and clarify eligibility requirements, objectives, and purposes, separate sections have been developed for each grant program.
Unsuccessful applicants have often requested the basis upon which funding decisions were made. The existing regulation contains general statements describing the priority criteria used in making those decisions. The proposed rule would provide a more detailed description of the project priority criteria used in determining if an applicant is selected or not selected for funding.
Over the years, the number of proposals for projects to be operated within a single State, especially in the Solid Waste Management Grants program, have drastically increased. Due to the requirements of the existing regulations, these projects are processed and serviced from the National Office. Experience has shown that these projects should be processed and serviced from the Rural Development State Offices because of the proximity of the project and the familiarity of field personnel with grantee organizations. RUS is proposing to delegate approval authority to the State Directors for projects to be operated only within their States. Funding for these projects would be determined by the National Office on a competitive basis.
The proposed rule contains a variety of procedural changes from the provisions of the current rule. Some of these revisions are minor or are merely intended to clarify existing RUS policy and procedure. Other revisions reflect fundamental changes to RUS' operation of the grant programs and are outlined below.
For clarification purposes, RUS proposes to define the term “technical assistance” as it relates to eligibility of projects under both grant programs.
The current rule prohibits the use of grant funds for expenses incurred prior to grant approval. The proposed rule would allow applicants to incur grant-related expenses, however, RUS would not be obligated to reimburse these expenses if the grant is not approved or is insufficient to do so.
To foster clarity, this proposed rule includes an expanded explanation of the items needed to complete an application package and a more detailed description of the information required for priority consideration. The proposed rule would also expand the priority criteria to include the population of associations to be served, needs assessment, description of how the project will be implemented, hands-on assistance, evaluation methodology, and strategy for sustaining the project.
The existing regulation requires fidelity bond coverage. The proposed rule would remove the requirement because coverage is not needed when grant funds are reimbursed for actual expenses.
This proposed rule would require grantees to obtain written permission from the approval official for changes in the project or changes of more than 10 percent of the total budget. Permission would be obtained before changes are put into effect or funds spent.
The proposed rule would allow grantees to submit financial statements in certain instances. The existing regulation does not offer any option other than submission of an audit.
Business and industry, Community development, Community facilities, Grant programs-housing and community
For reasons set forth in the preamble, RUS proposes to amend 7 CFR chapter XVII of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations by revising part 1775 to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; 16 U.S.C. 1005.
This subpart sets forth the general policies and procedures for the Technical Assistance and Training and the Solid Waste Management Grant Programs. Any processing or servicing activity conducted pursuant to this part involving authorized assistance to Rural Development employees with Water and Environmental Program responsibility, members of their families, known close relatives, or business or close personal associates, is subject to the provisions of subpart D of part 1900 of this title. Applicants for this assistance are required to identify any known relationship or association with an Agency employee.
The following definitions apply to subparts A through D of this part.
Information about the forms, instructions, regulations, bulletins, OMB Circulars, Treasury Circulars, standards, documents and publications cited in this part is available from any UDSA/Rural Development Office or the Rural Utilities Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250–1500.
The National Office of the Rural Utilities Service will administer grant funds and will allocate them on a competitive basis.
Grant funds may not be used to:
(a) Duplicate current services, replace or substitute support normally provided by other means, such as those performed by an association's consultant in developing a project, including feasibility, design, and cost estimates.
(b) Fund political or lobbying activities.
(c) Purchase real estate or vehicles, improve or renovate office space, or repair and maintain privately owned property.
(d) Pay the costs for construction, improvement, rehabilitation, modification, or operation and maintenance of water, wastewater, and solid waste disposal facilities.
(e) Construct or furnish a building.
(f) Intervene in the Federal regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings.
(g) Sue the Federal Government or any other government entities.
(h) Pay for any other costs that are not allowable under OMB Circular A–87, OMB Circular 110, OMB Circular 102 or OMB Circular A–122.
(i) Make contributions or donations to others.
(j) Fund projects that duplicate technical assistance given to implement action plans under the National Forest-Dependent Rural Communities Economic Diversification Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6613). Applicants cannot receive both grants made under this part and grants that the Forest Service makes to implement the action plans for five continuous years from the date of grant approval by the Forest Service.
(1) The Forest Service helps rural communities that are dependent upon national forest resources diversify existing industries and economies. It establishes rural forestry and economic diversification action teams that prepare
(2) To avoid duplicate assistance, applicants must contact the Forest Service to find out if any geographical areas or local areas in a State have received grants for technical assistance to an economically disadvantaged community. These areas are defined as national forest-dependent communities under 7 U.S.C. 6612. Applicants will provide documentation to the Forest Service and Rural Utilities Service that they have contacted each agency.
(k) To pay, an outstanding judgment obtained by the United States in a Federal Court (other than in the United States Tax Court), which has been recorded. An applicant will be ineligible to receive a loan or grant until the judgment is paid in full or otherwise satisfied.
(l) Recruit applications for the Agency's water and waste loan and/or any loan and/or grant program. Grant funds cannot be used to create new business; however, they can be used to assist with application preparation.
The policies and regulations contained in subpart E of part 1901 of this title apply to grants made under this part.
The policies and regulations contained in part 1794 of this title apply to grants made for the purposes in §§ 1775.36 and 1775.66 of this part.
Other Federal statues and regulations are applicable to grants awarded under this part. These include but are not limited to:
(a) 7 CFR Part 1, Subpart A—USDA implementation of Freedom of Information Act.
(b) 7 CFR Part 3—USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A–129 regarding debt collection.
(c) 7 CFR Part 15, Subpart A—USDA implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
(d) 7 CFR Part 1794, RUS Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act.
(e) 7 CFR Part 1901, Subpart E—Civil Rights Compliance Requirements.
(f) 7 CFR Part 3016—USDA Implementation of OMB Circular Nos. A–102 and A–97, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.
(g) 7 CFR Part 3017, as amended—Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement); Government-wide Requirements for Drug-Fee Workplace (Grants), implementing Executive Order 12549 on debarment and suspension and the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 701).
(h) 7 CFR Part 3018—Restrictions on Lobbying, prohibiting the use of appropriated funds to influence Congress or a Federal agency in connection with the making of any Federal grant and other Federal contracting and financial transactions.
(i) 7 CFR Part 3019—USDA implementation of OMB Circular A–110, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.
(j) 7 CFR Part 3051—USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A–133 regarding audits of institutions of higher education and other nonprofit institutions.
(k) 29 U.S.C. 794, section 504—Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and 7 CFR part 15B (USDA implementation of statute), prohibiting discrimination based upon physical or mental handicap in Federally assisted programs.
The information collection requirements contained in this part have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and have been assigned OMB control number 0572–0112.
(a)
(b)
(1) An applicant will apply to the appropriate State Office of Rural Development if the project will serve a single State.
(2) An applicant will apply to the National Office if the project will serve multiple States. The application must be submitted to the following address: Assistant Administrator, Water and Environmental Programs, Rural Utilities Service, Washington, DC 20250–1570.
(c)
(1) Standard Form 424, “Application for Federal Assistance (For Non-Construction).”
(2) Standard Form 424A & B, “Budget Information-Non-Construction Programs.”
(3) Form AD–1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transaction.”
(4) Form AD 1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants) Alternative I—For Grantees Other Than Individuals.”
(5) Form AD 1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment.”
(6) Attachment regarding assistance provided to Rural Development Employees as required by RD Instruction 1900-D.
(7) Form RD 400–4, “Assurance Agreement.”
(8) Form RD 400–1, “Equal Opportunity Agreement.”
(9) Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable, applicant must include approved cost agreement rate schedule).
(10) Statement of Compliance for Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
(11) SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities” (include only if grant is over $100,000).
(12) Certification regarding Forest Service grant.
(d)
(1) Evidence of applicant's legal existence and authority in the form of:
(i) Certified copies of current authorizing and organizational documents for new applicants or former grantees where changes were made since the last legal opinion was obtained in conjunction with receipt of an RUS grant, or, certification that no changes have been made in authorizing or organizing documents since receipt of last RUS grant by applicant.
(ii) Current annual corporation report, Certificate of Good Standing, or statement they are not required.
(iii) For public nonprofits, Certificate of Continued Status from local attorney (if applicable).
(iv) Certified list of directors/officers with their respective terms.
(2) Evidence of tax exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), if applicable.
(3) Narrative of applicant's experience in providing services similar to those
(4) Latest financial information to show the applicant's financial capacity to carry out the proposed work. A current audit report is preferred, however applicants can submit a balance sheet and an income statement in lieu of an audit report.
(5) List of proposed services to be provided.
(6) Estimated breakdown of costs (direct and indirect) including those to be funded by grantee as well as other sources. Sufficient detail should be provided to permit the approval official to determine reasonableness, applicability, and allowability.
(7) Evidence that a Financial Management System is in place or proposed.
(8) Documentation on each of the priority ranking criteria listed in § 1775.11 of this part as follows:
(i) List of the associations to be served and the State or States where assistance will be provided. Identify associations by name, or other characteristics such as size, income, location, and provide MHI and population.
(ii) Description of the type of technical assistance and/or training to be provided and the tasks to be contracted.
(iii) Description of how the project will be evaluated and provide clearly stated goals and the method proposed to measure the results that will be obtained.
(iv) Documentation of need for proposed service. Provide detailed explanation of how the proposed services differ from other similar services being provided in the same area.
(v) Personnel on staff or to be contracted to provide the service and their experience with similar projects.
(vi) Statement indicating the number of months it takes to complete the project or service.
(vii) Documentation on cost effectiveness of project. Provide the cost per association to be served or proposed cost of personnel to provide assistance.
(viii) Other factors for consideration, such as emergency situation, training need identified, health or safety problems, geographic distribution, Rural Development Office recommendations, etc.
The application and supporting information will be used to determine the applicant's priority for available funds. All applications will be reviewed and scored for funding priority in accordance with RUS Guide 1775–2. Points will be given only for factors that are well documented in the application package and, in the opinion of the Agency, meet the objective outlined under each factor. The following is a listing of the criteria that will be used to select the applications that meet the objectives of the technical assistance program.
(a) Projects proposing to give priority for available services to rural communities having a population less than 5,500 and/or below 2,500.
(b) Projects proposing to give priority for available services to communities that are 80 percent of or below the SNMHI.
(c) Projects that will provide assistance in a multi-State area.
(d) Points will be awarded for work plans that clearly describe the goals and objectives of the project, how they will be accomplished in targeted communities, and what measurement of accomplishment will be used.
(e) Projects containing needs assessment (
(f ) Projects containing evaluation methods that are specific to the activity, clearly defined, measurable, and with projected outcomes.
(g) Applicants proposing to use at least 75 percent of the total grant amount for their own staff, or the staff of an affiliated organization to provide services for a project instead of contracting with an outside organization for the services.
(h) Projects providing technical assistance/training that accomplish the objective within a 12-month or less timeframe.
(i) Projects primarily providing “hands on” technical assistance and training,
(j) Cash or in kind support of project from non-federal sources.
(k) Ability to demonstrate sustainability of project without Federal financial support.
(a)
(1) Grant applications submitted at the State level will receive a letter acknowledging receipt and confirmation that all information required for a full application was included in the packet. The State will notify the applicant of missing information. The applicant will have 14 business days to respond.
(2) The State Office will review applications for eligibility. Those applicants that are deemed ineligible will be notified. Applicants deemed eligible will be forwarded to the National Office for funding consideration.
(3) The National Office will review all applications received from State Offices. Applications will compete on a priority basis and will be scored and ranked. The applications receiving the highest scores and subject to the availability of funds will be notified by the National Office that they have been selected for funding. The National Office will send applications to the State Office for final processing.
(4) Applicants not selected for funding due to low priority rating shall be notified by the State Office.
(b)
(1) National and multi-State applications submitted to the National Office will receive a letter acknowledging receipt and confirmation that all information required for a full application was included in the packet. The National Office shall notify the applicant of missing information. The applicant will have 14 business days to respond.
(2) The National Office will review applications for eligibility. Those applications that are deemed ineligible will be notified. Applications deemed eligible will be reviewed and given a rating score. Applications receiving the highest scores will be grouped with those received from State Offices for funding consideration.
(3) The National Office will review all applications received. Applications will compete on a priority basis and will be scored and ranked. The applications receiving the highest scores and subject to the availability of funds will be notified by the National Office that they have been selected for funding. The National Office shall conduct final processing of multi-State and national applications.
(4) Multi-State and National applicants not selected for funding due to low priority rating will be notified by the National Office.
(c)
Applicants selected for funding will complete a grant agreement, RUS Guide
Grantees will be reimbursed as follows:
(a) SF–270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement,” will be completed by the grantee and submitted to either the State or National Office not more frequently than monthly.
(b) Upon receipt of a properly completed SF–270, the funds will be requested through the field office terminal system. Ordinarily, payment will be made within 30 days after receipt of a proper request for reimbursement.
(c) Grantees are encouraged to use women- and minority-owned banks (a bank which is owned at least 50 percent by women or minority group members) for the deposit and disbursement of funds.
Any change in the scope of the project, budget adjustments of more than 10 percent of the total budget, or any other significant change in the project must be reported to and approved by the approval official by written amendment to RUS Guide 1775–1. Any change not approved may be cause for termination of the grant.
(a) Grantees shall constantly monitor performance to ensure that time schedules are being met, projected work by time periods is being accomplished, and other performance objectives are being achieved.
(b) SF–269, “Financial Status Report (short form),” and a project performance activity report will be required of all grantees on a quarterly basis, due 30 days after the end of each quarter.
(c) A final project performance report will be required with the last SF–269 due 90 days after the end of the last quarter in which the project is completed. The final report may serve as the last quarterly report.
(d) All multi-State grantees are to submit an original of each report to the National Office. Grantees serving only one State are to submit an original of each report to the State Office. The project performance reports should detail, preferably in a narrative format, activities that have transpired for the specific time period and shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for that period (
(2) Analysis of challenges or setbacks that occurred during the grant period;
(3) Copies of fliers, news releases, news articles, announcements and other information used to promote services or projects;
(4) Problems, delays, or adverse conditions which will affect attainment of overall project objectives, prevent meeting time schedules or objectives, or preclude the attainment of particular project work elements during established time periods. This disclosure shall be accompanied by a statement of the action taken or planned to resolve the situation; and
(5) Activities planned for the next reporting period.
The grantee will provide an audit report or financial statements as follows:
(a) Grantees expending $500,000 or more Federal funds per fiscal year will submit an audit conducted in accordance with OMB Circular A–133. The audit will be submitted within 9 months after the grantee's fiscal year. Additional audits may be required if the project period covers more than one fiscal year.
(b) Grantees expending less than $500,000 will provide annual financial statements covering the grant period, consisting of the organization's statement of income and expense and balance sheet signed by an appropriate official of the organization. Financial statements will be submitted within 90 days after the grantee's fiscal year.
Grants will be serviced in accordance with RUS Guide 1775–1 and subpart E of part 1951 of this title. When grants are terminated for cause, 7 CFR Part 11 will be followed.
The authority under this part is re-delegated to the Assistant Administrator, Water and Environmental Programs, except for the discretionary authority contained in § 1775.34 of this part. The Assistant Administrator, Water and Environmental Programs may re-delegate the authority in this part.
This subpart sets forth additional policies and procedures for making Technical Assistance and Training (TAT) grants authorized under Section 306(a)(14)(A) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT) (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)), as amended.
The objectives of the program are to:
(a) Identify and evaluate solutions to water and waste problems in rural areas.
(b) Assist applicants in preparing applications for water and waste disposal loans/grants.
(c) Assist associations in improving operation and maintenance of existing water and waste facilities in rural areas.
Grants will be made from not less than 1 percent or, at the discretion of the Agency Administrator, not more than 3 percent of any appropriations for grants under Section 306(a)(2) of the CONACT (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)). Funds not obligated by September 1 of each fiscal year will be used for water and waste disposal grants made in accordance with part 1780 of this chapter.
(a) Entities eligible for grants must be private nonprofit organizations with tax exempt status, designated by the Internal Revenue Service. A nonprofit organization is defined as any corporation, trust, association, cooperative, or other organization that:
(1) Is operated primarily for scientific, education, service, charitable, or similar purposes in the public interest.
(2) Is not organized primarily for profit.
(3) Uses its net proceeds to maintain, improve, and/or expand its operations.
(b) Entities must be legally established and located within a state as defined in § 1775.2.
(c) Organizations must be incorporated by December 31 of the year the application period occurs to be eligible for funds.
(d) Private businesses, Federal agencies, public bodies, and individuals are ineligible for these grants.
(e) Applicants must also have the proven ability, background, experience, (as evidenced by the organization's satisfactory completion of project(s) similar to those proposed;) legal authority, and actual capacity to provide technical assistance and/or training on a regional basis to associations as provided in § 1775.33 of this subpart. To meet the requirement of actual capacity, an applicant must either:
(1) Have the necessary resources to provide technical assistance and/or
(2) Be assisted by an affiliate or member organization which has such background and experience and which agrees, in writing, that it will provide the assistance, or
(3) Contract with a nonaffiliated organization for not more than 49 percent of the grant to provide the proposed assistance.
Grants may be made to organizations as defined in § 1775.35 of this subpart to enable them to assist associations to:
(a) Identify and evaluate solutions to water problems of associations in rural areas relating to source, storage, treatment, and/or distribution.
(b) Identify and evaluate solutions to waste problems of associations in rural areas relating to collection, treatment, and/or disposal.
(c) Prepare water and/or waste disposal loan/grant applications.
(d) Provide technical assistance/training to association personnel that will improve the management, operation, and maintenance of water and waste facilities.
(e) Pay the expenses associated with providing the technical assistance and/or training authorized in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
At least 10 percent of available funds will be used for funding single State projects based on the priority criteria.
This subpart sets forth the policies and procedures for making Solid Waste Management (SWM) grants authorized under Section 310B of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT) (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)), as amended.
The objectives of the program are to:
(a) Reduce or eliminate pollution of water resources, and
(b) Improve planning and management of solid waste sites.
(a) Entities eligible for grants must be either:
(1) Private nonprofit organizations with tax exempt status designated by the Internal Revenue Service. A nonprofit organization is defined as any corporation, trust, association, cooperative, or other organization that:
(i) Is operated primarily for scientific, education, service, charitable, or similar purposes in the public interest.
(ii) Is not organized primarily for profit.
(iii) Uses its net proceeds to maintain, improve, and/or expand its operations.
(2) Public bodies.
(3) Federally acknowledged or State-recognized Native American tribe or group.
(4) Academic institutions.
(b) Entities must be legally established and located within a state as defined in § 1775.2.
(c) Organizations must be incorporated by December 31 of the year the application period occurs to be eligible for funds.
(d) Private businesses, Federal agencies, and individuals are ineligible for these grants.
(e) Applicants must also have the proven ability; background; experience, as evidenced by the organization's satisfactory completion of project(s) similar to those proposed; legal authority; and actual capacity to provide technical assistance and/or training on a regional basis to associations as provided in § 1775.63 of this subpart. To meet the requirement of actual capacity, an applicant must either:
(1) Have the necessary resources to provide technical assistance and/or training to associations in rural areas through its staff, or
(2) Be assisted by an affiliate or member organization which has such background and experience and which agrees, in writing, that it will provide the assistance, or
(3) Contract with a nonaffiliated organization for not more than 49 percent of the grant to provide the proposed assistance.
Grants may be made to organizations as defined in § 1775.65 to enable them to assist associations to:
(a) Provide technical assistance and/or training to reduce the solid waste stream through reduction, recycling, and reuse.
(b) Provide training to enhance operator skills in maintaining and operating active landfills.
(c) Provide technical assistance and/or training for operators of landfills which are closed or will be closed in the near future with the development/implementation of closure plans, future land use plans, safety and maintenance planning, and closure scheduling within permit requirements.
(d) Evaluate current landfill conditions to determine the threats to water resources.
(e) Pay the expenses associated with providing the technical assistance and/or training authorized in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
The maximum amount for a single applicant for a Solid Waste Management project will be 25 percent of available grant funds.
The Administrator may, in individual cases, make an exception to any requirement or provision of this part which is not inconsistent with the authorizing statue or other applicable law and is determined to be in the Government's interest.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This amendment proposes the supersedure of an existing airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC–10 series airplanes, Model MD–10 series airplanes, and Model MD–11 series airplanes. That AD currently requires repetitive inspections of the number 1 and 2 electric motors of the auxiliary hydraulic pump for electrical resistance, continuity, mechanical rotation, and associated wiring resistance/ voltage; and corrective actions, if necessary. This action would reduce the interval between the repetitive inspections. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent various failures
Comments must be received by March 8, 2004.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003–NM–119–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227–1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A (D800–0024). This information may be examined at the 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.
Ken Sujishi, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5353; fax (562) 627–5210.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2003–NM–119–AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket Number 2003–NM–119–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.
On July 2, 2001, the FAA issued AD 2001–14–08, amendment 39–12319 (66 FR 36441, July 12, 2001), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC–10 series airplanes, Model MD–10 series airplanes, and Model MD–11 series airplanes, to require the following actions:
1. Do an initial detailed inspection of the number 1 and 2 electric motors of the auxiliary hydraulic pump for electrical resistance, continuity, mechanical rotation, and associated wiring resistance/voltage.
2. Replace any failed hydraulic pump.
3. Troubleshoot and repair any failed wiring.
4. Do repetitive inspections of the number 1 and 2 electric motors of the auxiliary hydraulic pump for electrical resistance, continuity, mechanical rotation, and associated wiring resistance/voltage.
The initial inspections were to be conducted within 6 months after August 16, 2001, the effective date of AD 2001–14–08, except in one case. For those MD–11 and MD–11F airplanes which had accumulated fewer than 3,000 flight hours as of the effective date of the AD, the initial inspection was to be done within 6 months after accumulating 3,000 flight hours. The repetitive inspections were to be conducted every 6,000 flight-hours or every 18 months thereafter, whichever came first.
That AD was prompted by reports that, during ground operations or when powered in flight by the air driven generator, the electric motors of the auxiliary hydraulic pump and associated motor feeder cables failed on certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC–10, MD–11, and MD–90–30 series airplanes.
The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent such failures of the electric motors of the auxiliary hydraulic pump and associated wiring, which could result in fire at the auxiliary hydraulic pump and consequent damage to the adjacent electrical equipment and/or structure.
Since the issuance of that AD, Boeing has informed the FAA that the original compliance time was not adequate, because another incident of failure of an electric motor of the auxiliary hydraulic pump had occurred during the interval between repetitive inspections.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10–29A142, Revision 02, dated April 17, 2003, pertaining to certain Model DC–10–10, DC–10–10F, DC–10–15, DC–10–30, DC–10–30F (KC–10A, KDC–10), DC–10–40, DC–10–40F, MD–10–10F, MD–10–30F airplanes. The FAA has also reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11–29A057, Revision 02, dated April 17, 2003, pertaining to certain Model MD–11 and MD–11F airplanes. The actions described in those alert service bulletins are essentially the same as those described in Revision 01 of the alert service bulletins. Revision 02 of both alert service bulletins recommend that the repetitive inspections of the number 1 and 2 electric motors of the auxiliary hydraulic pump for electrical resistance, continuity, mechanical rotation, and associated airplane wiring resistance/voltage be performed “every 2,500
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would supersede AD 2001–14–08 to require that the repetitive inspections of the number 1 and 2 electric motors of the auxiliary hydraulic pump for electrical resistance, continuity, mechanical rotation, and associated airplane wiring resistance/voltage; and corrective actions, if necessary, be performed at intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight hours. The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletins, except as described below.
This is considered to be interim action until final action is identified, at which time the FAA may consider further rulemaking.
Operators should note that, although the Accomplishment Instructions of the referenced alert service bulletins describe procedures for reporting the results, both positive and negative of the initial inspection to the manufacturer, this proposed AD would not require those actions. The FAA does not need this information from operators.
The FAA has revised the applicability of the existing AD to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models. The existing AD specifies the applicability as “Model DC–10 and MD–10 series airplanes, as listed in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC10–29A142, Revision 01, dated October 21, 1999; and Model MD–11 series airplanes, as listed in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD11–29A057, Revision 01, dated October 21, 1999; certificated in any category.”
The proposed AD specifies the applicability as “McDonnell Douglas Model DC–10–10, DC–10–10F, DC–10–15, DC–10–30, DC–10–30F (KC–10A, KDC–10), DC–10–40, DC–1040F, MD–10–10F, and MD–10–30F airplanes, as listed in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC10–29A142, Revision 01, dated October 21, 1999; or Revision 02, dated April 17, 2003; and Model MD–11 and MD–11F airplanes, as listed in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD11–29A057, Revision 01, dated October 21, 1999; or Revision 02, dated April 17, 2003; certificated in any category.
There are approximately 604 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 396 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
The repetitive inspections that are currently required by AD 2001–14–08 take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact on U.S. operators of the actions currently required is estimated to be $25,740, or $65 per airplane, per inspection cycle. The cost of the repetitive inspections per inspection cycle would not change in the proposed AD.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the current or proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures provided 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, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39–12319 (66 FR 36441, July 12, 2001), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD), to read as follows:
To prevent various failures of electric motors of the auxiliary hydraulic pump and associated wiring, which could result in fire at the auxiliary hydraulic pump and consequent damage to the adjacent electrical equipment and/or structure, accomplish the following:
(a) The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of one of the following service bulletins, as applicable:
(1) For Model DC–10–10, DC–10–10F, DC–10–15, DC–10–30, DC–10–30F (KC–10A, KDC–10), DC–10–40, DC–10–40F, MD–10–10F, and MD–10–30F airplanes: McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC10–29A142, Revision 01, dated October 21, 1999; or Revision 02, dated April 17, 2003.
(2) For Model MD–11 and MD–11F airplanes: McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD11–29A057, Revision 01, dated October 21, 1999; or Revision 02, dated April 17, 2003.
Paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this AD restate the requirement for an
(b) Do a detailed inspection of the number 1 and 2 electric motors of the auxiliary hydraulic pumps for electrical resistance, continuity, mechanical rotation, and associated airplane wiring resistance/voltage, as specified in paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For Model DC–10–10, DC–10–10F, DC–10–15, DC–10–30, DC–10–30F (KC–10A, KDC–10), DC–10–40, DC–10–40F, MD–10–10F, and MD–10–30F airplanes: Do the detailed inspection within 6 months after August 16, 2001 (the effective date of AD 2001–14–08), in accordance with the service bulletin.
(2) For Model MD–11 and MD–11F airplanes that have accumulated 3,000 flight hours or more as of August 16, 2001: Do the detailed inspection within 6 months after August 16, 2002, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(3) For Model MD–11 and MD–11F airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 3,000 flight hours as of August 16, 2002: Do the inspection within 6 months after accumulating 3,000 flight hours, in accordance with the service bulletin.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.”
(c) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD prior to accumulating an additional 2,500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD or prior to accumulating 6,000 flight hours since the previous inspection, whichever occurs first.
(d) If no failures are detected during the inspection required by paragraph (b) or (c) of this AD, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight hours.
(e) If any pump motor fails during any inspection required by paragraph (b) or (c) of this AD, before further flight, replace the auxiliary hydraulic pump with a serviceable pump in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (c) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight hours.
(f) If any airplane wiring fails during any inspection required by paragraph (b) or (c) of this AD, before further flight, troubleshoot and repair the wiring in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (c) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight hours.
(g) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 series airplanes. This proposal would require a magnetic inspection of the sliding members in the main landing gear (MLG) for cracking, and replacement of the sliding members with serviceable parts, if necessary. This action is necessary to prevent fatigue cracking of the sliding member, which could result in possible separation of the MLG from the airplane and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane upon landing and possible injury to passengers. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by February 23, 2004.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002–NM–256–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227–1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Fokker Services B.V., PO Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Thomas Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–1137; fax (425) 227–1149.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2002–NM–256–AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002–NM–256–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.
The Civil Aviation Authority—The Netherlands (CAA–NL), which is the airworthiness authority for the Netherlands, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 series airplanes. The CAA–NL advises that it received a report of the sliding member of a main landing gear (MLG) breaking off during pushback of the airplane from the gate. The failure occurred during braking while the airplane was moving backwards, immediately after the tow bar was inadvertently disconnected. Investigation revealed that the separation had been caused by overload, initiated by a fatigue crack on the aft side of the sliding member of the MLG. Further investigation on spare parts and airplanes in service revealed additional units with cracks in the affected area. Such fatigue cracking, if not corrected, could result in possible separation of the MLG from the airplane and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane upon landing and possible injury to passengers.
Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–32–133, dated April 1, 2002, which describes procedures for performing a magnetic inspection of the sliding members of the MLG for cracking, and replacing the sliding members with serviceable parts, if necessary. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. The CAA–NL classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued Dutch airworthiness directive 2002–060, dated April 29, 2002, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the Netherlands.
The Fokker service bulletin references Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100–32–103, dated March 11, 2002, as an additional source of service information for accomplishment of the magnetic inspection.
These airplane models are manufactured in the Netherlands and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA–NL has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the CAA–NL, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously, except as discussed below.
Operators should note that, although the Accomplishment Instructions of the referenced Fokker service bulletin describe procedures for reporting inspection findings to Fokker Services B.V., this proposed AD would not require that action. The FAA does not need this information from operators.
The FAA estimates that 110 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 4 or 12 work hours per airplane, depending on the airplane configuration, to accomplish the proposed inspection, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $28,600 or $85,800, or $260 or $780 per airplane, depending on the airplane configuration.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
To prevent fatigue cracking of the sliding member, which could result in possible separation of the MLG from the airplane and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane upon landing and possible injury to passengers, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 1,000 flight cycles or six months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, perform a magnetic inspection of the sliding members of the MLG for cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–32–133, dated April 1, 2002. If any crack is found during the inspection, before further flight, replace the sliding members with serviceable parts in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–32–133, dated April 1, 2002, refers to Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100–32–103, dated March 11, 2002, as an additional source of service information.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a sliding member of the MLG, P/N 201072301 or P/N 201072305, on any airplane, unless it has been inspected in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–32–133, dated April 1, 2002, and found to be serviceable.
(c) Although the service bulletin referenced in this AD specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include such a requirement.
(d) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, International Branch, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
The subject of this AD is addressed in Dutch airworthiness directive 2002–060, dated April 29, 2002.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 50 series airplanes. This proposal would require one-time detailed inspections for structural discrepancies of various fuselage attachments; and corrective actions, if necessary, to restore the structure to the original design specifications. This action is necessary to prevent early fatigue, corrosion, or fretting, which could result in structural failure of major components of the airplane and reduced structural integrity of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by February 23, 2004.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002–NM–232–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227–1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Dassault Falcon Jet, PO Box 2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey 07606. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–1137; fax (425) 227–1149.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2002–NM–232–AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the
The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 50 series airplanes. The DGAC advises that non-conformities to the original design specifications of the airplane were recorded at assembly for various fuselage attachments. Those non-conformities to specifications, if not corrected, could result in early fatigue, corrosion, or fretting, which could cause structural failure of major components, and reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Dassault Aviation has issued Service Bulletin F50–332, dated March 13, 2002, which describes procedures for detailed inspections for structural discrepancies (
This airplane model is manufactured in France and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously, except as discussed below.
Although the service bulletin specifies to submit a reporting card to the manufacturer, this proposed AD would not include such a requirement.
The FAA estimates that 21 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $65 per work hour. The estimated work hours per inspection are between 5 hours and 123 hours, depending on the operating point(s) that would be inspected. The estimated cost per airplane is between $325 and $7,995.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
To prevent early fatigue, corrosion, or fretting, which could result in structural failure of major components, and possible reduced structural integrity of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 78 months after the effective date of this AD, perform one-time detailed inspection(s) for structural discrepancies of the fuselage attachments at all applicable operating points specified in paragraph 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F50–332, dated March 13, 2002. Perform the inspections in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.”
(b) If any structural discrepancy of the fuselage attachments (
(c) Although the service bulletin specifies to submit a reporting card to the manufacturer, this AD does not include such a requirement.
(d) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
The subject of this AD is addressed in French airworthiness directive 2002–033–039(B) R1, dated May 15, 2002.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Saab Model SAAB 2000 series airplanes. This proposal would require repetitive inspections of the installation of the spoilers of the windshield wiper assemblies for discrepancies, and replacement with new spoilers if necessary. The proposal also would require eventual replacement of the spoilers of the windshield wiper assemblies with new spoilers. This action is necessary to prevent failure of the windshield wiper assembly, which could result in loss of visibility, damage to the propeller(s) and/or engine(s), or penetration of the fuselage skin and consequent rapid depressurization of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by February 23, 2004.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002–NM–261–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227–1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Saab Aircraft AB, SAAB Aircraft Product Support, S–581.88, Linköping, Sweden. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Rosanne Ryburn, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2139; fax (425) 227–1149.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2002–NM–261–AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002–NM–261–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.
The Luftfartsverket (LFV), which is the airworthiness authority for Sweden, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Saab Model SAAB 2000 series airplanes. The LFV advises that it has received reports of findings of cracked or missing spoilers of the windshield wiper assemblies on certain airplanes listed in Saab Service Bulletin 2000–56–002 (Replacement of Windshield Wiper Spoiler), dated November 28, 1998, on which the actions specified in that service bulletin have not been done. Parts that separate from the airplane in this area can cause damage to the propeller(s), engine(s), and structure. One report indicated that, after excessive vibration and subsequent separation of a windshield wiper spoiler, the spoiler fell into the propeller and subsequently hit the wing leading edge and fuselage. Such conditions, if not corrected, could result in loss of visibility, damage to the propeller(s) and/or engine(s), or penetration of the fuselage skin and consequent rapid depressurization of the airplane.
Saab has issued Service Bulletin 2000–56–003, dated August 12, 2002, which describes procedures for repetitive detailed visual inspections of the installation of the spoilers of the windshield wiper assemblies for discrepancies (cracks, loose parts, deformation, general deterioration), and replacement with new spoilers if necessary. The service bulletin also describes procedures for an operational test of the windshield wipers after the inspection is done.
Saab also has issued Service Bulletin 2000–56–002, Revision 01, dated August 12, 2002, which describes procedures for replacement of the spoilers of the left and right windshield wiper assemblies with new spoilers. The replacement includes installation of a new spoiler/beam and spoiler angles. The service bulletin also describes procedures for an operational test of the windshield wipers after doing the replacement. Accomplishment of the replacement would eliminate the need for the repetitive inspections.
Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletins is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. The LFV classified these service bulletins as mandatory and issued Swedish airworthiness directive 1–178, dated August 15, 2002, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Sweden.
This airplane model is manufactured in Sweden and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the LFV has kept us informed of the situation described above. We have examined the findings of the LFV, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletins described previously, except as discussed below.
Service Bulletin 2000–56–003 refers to a “detailed visual inspection” of the left and right spoiler installation of the windshield wiper assemblies. We have determined that the procedures in the service bulletin should be described as a “detailed inspection.” Note 1 has been included in this proposed AD to define this type of inspection.
Service Bulletin 2000–56–002 and the referenced Swedish airworthiness directive do not give a specific compliance time for doing the replacement. The Swedish airworthiness directive does not recommend any compliance time, and the service bulletin merely specifies that compliance with the service bulletin is “recommended.” We have determined that a specific compliance time is necessary to ensure that operators address the unsafe condition in a timely manner. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this proposed AD, we considered not only the safety implications and the LFVs recommendations, but the manufacturer's recommendation and the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, the average utilization of the affected fleet, and the time necessary to do the proposed replacement (6 hours). In light of all of these factors, we find a compliance time of “Within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD” for doing the proposed replacement to be warranted, in that it represents an appropriate interval of time allowable for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety.
The FAA estimates that 3 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
It would take about 1 work hour per airplane to do the proposed inspection, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection proposed by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $195, or $65 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
It would take about 6 work hours per airplane to do the proposed replacement at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts would be free of charge. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the replacement proposed by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,170, or $390 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
To prevent failure of the windshield wiper assembly, which could result in loss of visibility, damage to the propeller(s) and/or engine(s), or penetration of the fuselage skin and consequent rapid depressurization of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 400 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Do a detailed inspection for discrepancies (including cracks, loose parts, deformation, general deterioration) of the installation of the spoilers of the windshield wiper assemblies (including doing an operational test), by doing all the actions per the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 2000–56–003, dated August 12, 2002.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.”
(1) If no discrepancies are found, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 400 flight hours, until the replacement required by paragraph (b) of this AD is done.
(2) If any discrepancies are found, before further flight, do the replacement required by paragraph (b) of this AD.
(b) Except as required by paragraph (a)(2) of this AD: Within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD; replace the spoilers of the windshield wiper assemblies (including doing an operational test) by doing all the actions per the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 2000–56–002, Revision 01, dated August 12, 2002. Such replacement ends the repetitive inspections required by this AD.
(c) Replacements done before the effective date of this AD per Saab Service Bulletin 2000–56–002, dated November 28, 1996, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in this AD.
(d) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
The subject of this AD is addressed in Swedish airworthiness directive 1–178, dated August 15, 2002.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to delete various local rules and state statutes from the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) that were incorporated into the SIP in error. These primarily include rules and statutes concerning procedures before the local hearing board, local fees, enforcement authorities, administrative permit requirements, and appeals. EPA has determined that the continued presence of these rules and statutes in the SIP is potentially confusing and thus problematic for affected sources, the State, local agencies, and EPA. The intended effect of this proposal is to delete these rules and statutes to make the SIP consistent with the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
Any comments must arrive by February 23, 2004.
Send comments to Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901 or e-mail to
You may inspect copies of the rules to be deleted and public comments at our Region IX office during normal business hours by appointment. You may also see copies of the rules by appointment at the locations listed in
Julie A. Rose, Region IX, (415) 947–4126. E-mail:
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” are used, we mean EPA.
The Clean Air Act was first enacted in 1970. In the 1970s and early 1980s, thousands of state and local agency regulations were submitted to EPA for incorporation into the SIP in order to fulfill the new federal requirements. In many cases, states submitted entire regulatory air pollution programs, including many elements not required by the Act. Due to time and resource constraints, EPA's review of these submittals focused primarily on the new substantive requirements and we approved many other elements into the SIP with minimal review.
We now recognize that many of these elements were not appropriate for approval into the SIP. In general, these elements are appropriate for state and local agencies to adopt and implement, but it is not necessary or appropriate to make them federally enforceable by incorporating them into the applicable SIP. These include:
A. Rules that govern local hearing board procedures and other administrative requirements such as frequency of meetings, salaries paid to board members, and procedures for petitioning for a local hearing.
B. Administrative permit rules such as those that describe procedures for action, denial, appeal, and reinstatement of permits to operate. Substantive local requirements to fulfill CAA new source review and operating permit provisions are federally approved or delegated elsewhere.
C. Variance provisions that provide for modification of the requirements of the applicable SIP. The variance procedures included in today's action are based in State law.
D. Various provisions describing local agency investigative or enforcement authority including the authority to inspect or arrest, issue violation notices, and issue orders for abatement. States may need to adopt such rules to demonstrate adequate enforcement authority under section 110(a)(2) of the Act, but they should not be approved into the applicable SIP to avoid potential conflict with EPA's independent authorities provided in CAA section 113, section 114 and elsewhere.
E. Local fee provisions that are not economic incentive programs and are not designed to replace or relax a SIP emission limit. While it is appropriate for local agencies to implement fee provisions, for example, to recover costs for issuing permits, it is generally not appropriate to make local fee collection federally enforceable.
EPA has determined that the California rules listed in the tables below are inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP, but were previously approved into the SIP in error. Dates that these rules were submitted by the State and approved by EPA are provided. We are proposing deletion of these rules and any earlier versions of these rules from the individual air pollution control district portions of the California SIP under CAA section 110(k)(6) as inconsistent with the requirements of CAA section 110 and title I, part D.
EPA has reviewed the rules listed in the tables above and determined that they were previously approved into the applicable California SIP in error. Deletion of these rules will not relax the applicable SIP and is consistent with the Act. Therefore, EPA is proposing to delete these rules under Section 110(k)(6) of the Act, which provides EPA authority to remove these rules without additional State submission. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive new information during the comment period supporting the maintenance of these rules in the SIP, we intend to publish a final action that will delete these rules from the federally enforceable SIP.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed action imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed 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
In this proposed rule, EPA is not developing or adopting a technical standard. 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 proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from food product manufacturing and processing, recordkeeping for VOC sources, and particulate matter (PM) emissions from woodworking operations. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
Any comments on this proposal must arrive by February 23, 2004.
Send comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901 or e-mail to steckel.andrew@epa.gov, or submit comments at
You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions, EPA's technical support documents (TSDs), and public comments at our Region IX office during normal business hours by appointment. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revisions by appointment at the following locations:
A copy of the rule may also be available via the Internet at
Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at either (415) 947–4111, or
This proposal addresses the following local rules: SCAQMD Rule 1131—Food Product Manufacturing and Processing Operations, SCAQMD Rule 109—Record Keeping for Volatile Organic Compound
We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document is a summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted by the Commission in this proceeding. The Commission sought comment on proposals that seek to provide regulatory certainty to both terrestrial fixed service (FS) and fixed satellite service (FSS) operators in the C-; and Ku-bands by protecting existing terrestrial FS and FSS operations from harmful interference that may be caused by ESVs; by allowing for future growth of FS and FSS networks; and by promoting more efficient use of the spectrum by permitting new uses of the bands by ESVs, thereby enabling important new communications services to be provided to consumers on board vessels. The Commission also sought comment on rules and procedures to license ESV networks in the C- and Ku-band frequencies over GSO FSS satellites.
Comments are due to be filed by February 23, 2004, and reply comments are due to be filed by March 8, 2004. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the information collection requirements on or before March 22, 2004.
Belinda Nixon, Breck Blalock, or James Ball, Policy Division, International Bureau, (202) 418–1460. For information concerning the information collection(s) contained in this document, contact Judith B. Herman at 202–418–0214, or via the Internet at
This is a summary of the Commission's
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) contains proposed new or modified information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–3. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the modified information collections contained in this proceeding.
In December 1991, Crescomm Transmission Services, Inc. (Crescomm), now Maritime Telecommunications Network (MTN) filed a Petition for Rulemaking to license ESVs in the C-band and Ku-band. In 1996, the IB and OET granted waivers of the Commission's rules to Qualcomm, Inc. (Qualcomm) and MTN to provide mobile-satellite service (MSS) using bands allocated to FSS and FS. The authorization placed conditions on the licenses, requiring them to protect against interference to, and accept interference from, other services or operations in the bands. Since that time, the Commission has authorized ESVs on U.S.-flagged vessels to operate pursuant to six month special temporary authorizations (STAs). The STAs require ESV service providers to operate on a non-harmful interference basis with respect to other radiocommunication services in the C-band and the Ku-band. In February, 2002, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on issues surrounding the operations and possible licensing of ESVs. The NOI focused on the bands that can best accommodate ESVs and on how to prevent interference to FS licensees.
In the Ku-band, the NPRM proposes to permit ESV operations on a primary basis with respect to other operations in the band. This band is extensively used by the FSS for VSAT operations. Various other satellite and terrestrial operations exist in the band to a lesser extent under other allocations. The NPRM seeks comment on how ESVs will co-exist with the other operations. The NPRM also seek comment on the following proposed requirements: Ku-band ESV networks would have automatic shut-off capability; ship location information would be provided to other operators in the Ku-band to identify and eliminate harmful interference that may be caused by an ESV; ESV equipped vessels must be 300 gross tons or larger; technical limitations to ensure compliance with two degree spacing and to prevent interference including: minimum antenna diameter of 1.2 meters, antenna pointing accuracy requirements, the NPRM proposes that Ku-band ESVs be authorized for a fifteen-year license term.
The NPRM proposes domestic rules that would authorize ESVs to operate on NIB in the C-band. The C-band is shared on a co-primary basis between the GSO FSS and terrestrial FS. The NPRM proposes that ESVs could be licensed following two approaches to address coordination issues between the ESVs and FS, the Coordination Approach and the Non-Coordination Approach. Under the Coordination Approach, ESVs operators would coordinate with FS operations prior to receiving a license for ES operations located within 300 kilometers of the United States coastline. ESVs would operate on a non-harmful interference basis with respect
Under the Non-Coordination Approach, ESVs would not have to coordinate with terrestrial FS operators prior to providing service. ESVs would be permitted to operate within 300 kilometers of the United States coastline on a non-harmful interference basis with respect to other operations in the band. An ESV would be subject to immediate shut-off of its service, however, if it is suspected that the ESV is causing harmful interference to a terrestrial FS operator. The ESV operator would have to resolve the interference claim prior to resuming operation of the ESV. In general, the NPRM seeks comment on the following: Non-Coordination ESV networks would have automatic shut-off capability; ship location information would be provided on a real time basis and via a secure method to terrestrial FS operators in the C-band to allow the terrestrial FS operators to identify harmful interference that may be caused by an ESV; ESV equipped vessels must be 300 gross tons or larger; and several technical limitations would apply to C-band ESVs including: minimum antenna diameter of 2.4 meters, antenna pointing accuracy requirements. Non-Coordination ESV networks would be authorized for a two-year license term.
The majority of cruise lines that operate from U.S. ports are foreign-flagged. By statute, the Commission cannot license ESVs on foreign-flagged vessels. In general, the NPRM seeks comment on the following: proposal to permit U.S.-licensed ESV hub operators to serve ESVs on foreign-flagged vessels in the C-band and Ku-band pursuant to the rules that would apply to U.S.-licensed ESV operations. If interference is caused by an ESV on a foreign-flagged vessel, the licensed ESV hub operator would have to eliminate the interference caused by the ESV operating in its network; proposal to permit, pursuant to bilateral agreements between the Commission and foreign regulators, ESV hub operators operating from foreign points to serve foreign-flagged vessels along the U.S. coastline in the C-band and Ku-band pursuant to the rules that would apply to U.S.-licensed ESV operations; in the alternative, we seek comment on whether ESV hub operators operating from foreign points should be required to shut off service to all ESVs on foreign-flagged vessels once the vessels enter the minimum distances (
This NPRM contains a new or modified information collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public to comment on the information collection contained in this NPRM as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Public and agency comments are due March 22, 2004. A copy of any comments on the information collection contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1–C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and actions considered in this NPRM. The text of the IRFA is set forth in Appendix B of the NPRM. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM.
The proposed rules would, if adopted, require satellite telecommunications operators to establish a database for tracking the location of ESV remote earth stations. The NPRM seeks
The NPRM seeks comment on possible methods for coordinating ESV operations with FS operations, including questions about the costs of such coordination, and also proposes and seeks comment on an alternative non-coordinated method for licensing. While the Commission does not expect that the cost of compliance with the coordination requirements, if adopted, would be burdensome to small business entities, the proposed alternative non-coordinated licensing approach would also be available to such entities and could help reduce costs to such entities.
This NPRM solicits comment on alternatives for more efficient processing of earth station on vessel (ESV) applications and simplifying ESV procedures, for example, by migrating from six-month special temporary licensing to a licensing method that would provide for licenses with terms from two to fifteen years. The NPRM also seeks comment on streamlining the application process for ESV operations by permitting blanket licensing of multiple ESV terminals in a single application. Adoption of some of these proposals would simplify the application process for ESVs and increase the licensing term for ESV operations. Accordingly, the Commission believes that adoption of these proposed rules would benefit all ESV applicants, including small entities, by significantly reducing the cost associated with obtaining and maintaining authority to operate an ESV network.
As described previously, the Commission also seeks comment on a number of alternative compliance and coordination processes, including seeking comments on the costs of such compliance. The Commission has taken care to consider the costs on business both large and small and has proposed alternatives to reduce the costs for both satellite and terrestrial operators.
Among these alternative is licensing on a non-coordination basis, which if adopted, could serve as a method for reducing costs for small entities by obviating the need to coordinate ESV operations with FS operations.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 303(y), and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 303(y), 308, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
Radio, Satellites, Telecommunications.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 2 and 25 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 2.1(c) is amended by adding a new definition in alphabetical order to read as follows:
(c) * * *
3. Section 2.106 is amended by revising pages 55, 57, 64, and 66 of the Table of Frequency Allocations and adding footnotes USxxx, NGxxx, and NGyyy to read as follows:
USxxx Earth stations on vessels operating in the band 14–14.5 GHz shall not cause harmful interference to Federal Government stations of the space research service in the band 14–14.2 GHz nor to stations of the radio astronomy service in the band 14.47–14.5 GHz.
NGxxx In the bands 3700–4200 MHz (space-to-Earth) and 5925–6425 MHz (Earth-to-space), earth stations on board vessels (ESVs) may communicate with space stations of the fixed-satellite service on the condition that such use not cause harmful interference to, claim protection from, or otherwise impose constraints on the operation or development of fixed stations that operate in these bands. ESVs shall take all practical steps to comply with ITU Resolution 902 (WRC–03).
NGyyy In the bands 11.7–12.2 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 14.0–14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space), earth stations on board vessels (ESVs) may communicate with space stations of the fixed-satellite service on a primary basis. ESVs shall take all practical steps to comply with ITU Resolution 902 (WRC–03).
4. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 701–744. Interprets or applies Sections 4, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309 and 332 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309 and 332, unless otherwise noted.
5. Section 25.103 is amended by adding a new paragraph (g) to read as follows:
(g)
6. Section 25.115 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) to read as follows:
(c)(3) Satellite earth station on board vessels (ESVs) or hub station applications for ESV networks operating in the 11.7–12.2 GHz/14.0–14.5 GHz (12/14 GHz or Ku-band).
(i) Applications to license networks of ESVs or hub earth stations for a network of ESVs operating in the 14.0–14.5 GHz frequency band under blanket operating authority shall be filed electronically on FCC Form 312, Main Form and Schedule B, for each large (5 meters or larger) hub station, and Schedule B for each representative type of small antenna (less than 5 meters) operating within the network.
(ii) The initial lead application shall provide a detailed overview of the complete network and fully identify the scope and nature of the service to be provided. The complete technical details of each representative type of small antenna shall also be provided. The lead application for a Ku-band ESV system must identify:
(A) The number of ESVs associated with the network;
(B) The operational area(s) where the proposed ESVs will operate. The description of the operational area should include a detailed description of any area within 125 km of the United States baseline, and in particular including ports and harbors where any ESV associated with the network may operate while in motion, halted for some unspecified time, moored or anchored, and all shipping channels and sea lanes where any ESV associated with the network may operate while in motion or halted for some unspecified time;
(C) Each licensee shall annually provide the Commission an updated list of all ports, harbors, shipping channels and sea lanes where any ESV associated with the network may operate;
(D) The ESV system's means of identification and location and method for maintaining a real-time secure database containing this information; and automatic mechanisms to terminate transmissions whenever the station operates outside of its authorized geographic area or operational limits; and a telephone number for the ESV operator point of contact to whom interference claims can be made 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week;
(E) The ESV system's means to verify ESV performance and to terminate ESV transmissions immediately;
(F) The minimum antenna diameter (m);
(G) The pointing accuracy of the ESV antenna in degrees;
(H) The ESV transmitted power spectral density at the input to the antenna (dBw/40kHz);
(I) Demonstration of compliance with § 25.209 and § 25.132 of this section
(c)(4) Satellite earth stations on board vessels (ESVs) or hub station applications for ESV networks operating in the 3700–4200 MHz/5925–6425 MHz (4/6 GHz or C-band).
(i) Applications to license networks of ESVs or hub earth stations for a network of ESVs operating in 4/6 GHz band shall be filed electronically on FCC Form 312, Main Form and Schedule B, for each large hub station.
(ii) The initial lead application shall provide a detailed overview of the complete network and fully identify the scope and nature of the service to be provided. The lead application shall also provide an accurate list of the vessels the ESVs are located on, the frequency, bandwidth, and satellites that the ESVs are using, and an itinerary for each vessel from which the ESVs will be operating. The lead application shall also identify whether the services to be provided will be on a coordinated or non-coordinated basis. The complete technical details of each representative type of small antenna shall also be provided. The lead application for a C-band ESV system must identify:
(A) The number of ESVs associated with the network;
(B) The gross tonnage of each class of ship equipped with ESVs operating within the network;
(C) The ESV system's means of identification and location and, for non-coordinated ESV operations, method for maintaining a real-time secure database containing this information which can be accessed by FS operators, and automatic mechanisms to terminate transmissions whenever the station operates outside of its authorized geographic area or operational limits;
(D) The ESV system's means to verify ESV performance and to terminate ESV transmissions immediately, and a telephone number for the ESV operator point of contact to whom such request can be made 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week;
(E) The antenna diameter (m);
(F) The pointing accuracy of the ESV antenna (°);
(G) The ESV transmitted power spectral density at the input to the antenna (dBw/40kHz);
(H) Demonstration of compliance with § 25.209 and § 25.132 of this section
(I) The operational area(s) where the proposed ESVs will operate. The description of the operational area should include a detailed description of any area within 300 km of the United States baseline, and in particular including ports and harbors where any ESV associated with the network may operate while in motion, halted for some unspecified time, moored or
(J) Each licensee shall annually provide the Commission an updated list of all ports, harbors, shipping channels and sea lanes where any ESV associated with the network may operate;
(K) Where ESV coordination in the 4/6 GHz band is required:
(
(
(
7. Section 25.121(a) is revised to read as follows:
(a)
8. Section 25.134 is amended by adding new paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) to read as follows:
(a)(3)
(a)(4)
9. Section 25.202 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(8) to read as follows:
(a)(8) The following frequencies are available for use by ESVs:
10. Section 25.203 is amended by adding a new paragraph (l) to read as follows:
(l) Applications for coordination of 4/6 GHz band earth stations on board vessels. Prior to the filing of its application, the ESV hub earth station applicant must coordinate the proposed frequency usage of the ESVs within its network with existing terrestrial users and with applicants for terrestrial station authorizations and with previously filed applications in accordance with the coordination procedures set forth in Recommendations ITU–R SF.1649.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to designate critical habitat for the Santa Barbara County Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment (DPS) of the California tiger salamander (
Critical habitat identifies specific areas that are essential to the conservation of a listed species and, with respect to areas within the geographic range occupied by the species, areas that may require special management considerations or protection. The primary constituent elements for the California tiger salamander are aquatic and upland areas where suitable breeding and nonbreeding habitats are interspersed throughout the landscape, and are interconnected by continuous dispersal habitat. All areas proposed for designation as critical habitat for the California tiger salamander contain one or more of the primary constituent elements.
Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider economic and other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Section 7 of the Act prohibits destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. We solicit data and comments from the public on all aspects of this proposal, including data on the economic and other impacts of designation. We may revise this proposal to incorporate or address new information received during the comment period.
We will accept comments from all interested parties until March 22, 2004. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods:
1. You may submit written comments and information to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003.
2. You may hand-deliver written comments to our Ventura Office, at the address given above.
3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California (telephone 805–644–1766).
Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California, (telephone 805–644–1766; facsimile 805–644–3958).
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments particularly are sought concerning:
(1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including whether the benefit of designation will outweigh any threats to the species due to designation;
(2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of California tiger salamander habitat, and what habitat is essential to the conservation of the species and why;
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
(4) Any foreseeable economic or other potential impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any impacts on small entities; and
(5) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments.
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods (see
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, 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. However, we will not consider anonymous 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 inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
In 30 years of implementing the Act, the Service has found that the designation of statutory critical habitat provides little additional protection to most listed species, while consuming significant amounts of available conservation resources. The Service's present system for designating critical habitat has evolved since its original statutory prescription into a process that provides little real conservation benefit, is driven by litigation and the courts rather than biology, limits our ability to fully evaluate the science involved, consumes enormous agency resources, and imposes huge social and economic costs. The Service believes that additional agency discretion would allow our focus to return to those actions that provide the greatest benefit to the species most in need of protection.
While attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to successful conservation actions, we have consistently found that, in most circumstances, the designation of critical habitat is of little additional value for most listed species, yet it
We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most biologically urgent species conservation needs.
The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result, listing petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list critically imperiled species, and final listing determinations on existing proposals are all significantly delayed.
The accelerated schedules of court ordered designations have left the Service with almost no ability to provide for adequate public participation or to ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before making decisions on listing and critical habitat proposals due to the risks associated with noncompliance with judicially-imposed deadlines. This in turn fosters a second round of litigation in which those who fear adverse impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless, is very expensive, and in the final analysis provides relatively little additional protection to listed species.
The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with NEPA all are part of the cost of critical habitat designation. None of these costs result in any benefit to the species that is not already afforded by the protections of the Act enumerated earlier, and they directly reduce the funds available for direct and tangible conservation actions.
The California tiger salamander was first described as a distinct species,
The California tiger salamander is a large terrestrial salamander with a broad, rounded snout. Adults may reach a total length of 8.2 in, with males generally averaging about 8 in and females averaging 6.8 in. The small eyes have black irises and protrude from the head. Coloration consists of white or pale yellow spots or bars on a black background on the back and sides and a yellowish belly. Males can be distinguished from females, especially during the breeding season, by their swollen cloacae (a common chamber into which the intestinal, urinary, and reproductive canals discharge), more developed tail fins, and larger overall size (Loredo and Van Vuren 1996).
California tiger salamanders are restricted to California, and their range does not overlap with any other species of tiger salamander (Stebbins 1985). Within California, the Santa Barbara County DPS is separated from the remainder of the range of the species by the Coast Ranges, particularly the La Panza and Sierra Madre Ranges, and the Carrizo Plain, which extends into the Temblor Range in eastern San Luis Obispo and western Kern Counties (Shaffer
Santa Barbara County California tiger salamanders constitute a DPS with a potential range that is approximately 10 percent of Santa Barbara County's 2,738 square miles (mi
The 46 known California tiger salamander breeding ponds appear to be distributed in 6 general areas, which we refer to as “populations” or “subpopulations”: western Santa Maria/Orcutt, eastern Santa Maria, western Los Alamos/Careaga, eastern Los Alamos, the Purisima Hills, and the Santa Rita Valley. Because known ponds in different populations are separated from each other by a minimum of 2.49 miles (mi), which is approximately twice the maximum distance that California tiger salamanders have been observed to travel from a breeding pond, these areas are treated as separate, unconnected populations for the purposes of this critical habitat designation. However, some areas with potential breeding ponds that have never been surveyed for California tiger salamanders may link these areas, especially around the Purisima Hills and Santa Rita Valley populations.
Although California tiger salamanders spend most of their lives in upland habitats, their reproduction is tied to aquatic habitats. The salamanders breeding in and living around a pool or seasonal pond, or a local complex of pools or seasonal ponds, constitute a local population. Historically, California tiger salamanders bred primarily in natural vernal pools, but they also breed successfully in human-made stock ponds created for ranching and agricultural purposes.
Migrations to and from breeding ponds occur during the rainy season (November to May), with the greatest activity from December to February (Storer 1925; Loredo and Van Vuren 1996; Trenham
Female California tiger salamanders mate and lay their eggs singly or in small groups, typically attached to vegetation near the edge of the breeding pond (Twitty 1941; Shaffer
California tiger salamander eggs require 2 to 4 weeks to hatch into larvae (Storer 1925). After 3 to 6 months of development, the larvae metamorphose (change into a different physical form) into terrestrial juveniles. Amphibian larvae must grow to a critical minimum body size before they can metamorphose (Wilbur and Collins 1973). The longer the ponding duration, the larger the larvae and metamorphosed juveniles are able to grow, and the more likely they are to survive and reproduce (Pechmann
In the late spring or early summer, before the ponds dry completely, metamorphosed juveniles leave them and enter upland habitat. This emigration occurs in both wet and dry conditions (Loredo and Van Vuren 1996; Loredo
The California tiger salamander inhabits low-elevation (typically below 1,400 ft (ft)), vernal pools and seasonal ponds and the associated grassland, oak savannah, and coastal scrub plant communities of the Santa Maria, Los Alamos, and Santa Rita Valleys in northwestern Santa Barbara County (Shaffer
The aquatic component of the California tiger salamander's habitat consists of temporary ponded freshwater habitats. Historically, the vernal pools constituted the majority of California tiger salamander breeding habitat. Vernal pools typically form in topographic depressions underlain by an impervious layer (such as claypan, hardpan, or volcanic strata) that prevents downward percolation of water. Vernal pool hydrology is characterized by ponding of water during the late fall, winter, and spring, followed by complete desiccation during the summer dry season (Holland and Jain 1998).
In Santa Barbara County, California tiger salamanders are found in three general types of natural vernal pools, including (1) dunal or deflational pools and ponds in sandy terraces; (2) isolated fold and fault sag ponds within ridges or valleys; and (3) fluvial ponds of varying origins in intermittent drainages within or along the margins of terraces.
In addition to vernal pools and seasonal ponds, California tiger salamanders also use small artificial water bodies such as stockponds for breeding (Stebbins 1985; Zeiner
Regardless of pond type, breeding ponds need to be inundated (hold water) for a minimum of 12 weeks to allow for successful metamorphosis.
California tiger salamanders spend the majority of their lives in upland habitats. The upland component of California tiger salamander habitat typically consists of grassland savannah with scattered oak trees. However, in Santa Barbara County, some occupied California tiger salamander breeding ponds exist within mixed grassland and woodland habitats, and a few ponds are found in woodlands, scrub, or chaparral habitats.
Within these upland habitats, adult California tiger salamanders spend the greater part of their lives in the underground burrows of small mammals, especially the burrows of California ground squirrels (
The burrows may be active or inactive, but because they collapse within 18 months if not maintained, an active population of burrowing mammals is necessary to sustain sufficient underground refugia for the species (Loredo
Little is known about what California tiger salamanders are doing while in burrows, as they are difficult to observe while underground. Although the upland burrows inhabited by California tiger salamanders have often been referred to as “aestivation” sites, which implies a state of inactivity, most evidence suggests that California tiger salamanders remain active in their underground dwellings. Trenham (2001) recorded underground movements within burrow systems, and other
Movements made by California tiger salamanders can be grouped into two main categories: (1) Breeding migration; and (2) interpond dispersal. Breeding migration is the movement of salamanders to and from a pond from the surrounding upland habitat. After metamorphosis, juveniles move away from breeding ponds into the surrounding uplands, where they live continuously for several years (on average, 4 years). Upon reaching sexual maturity, most individuals return to their natal/birth pond to breed, while 20 percent disperse to other ponds (Trenham
California tiger salamanders are known to travel large distances from breeding ponds into upland habitats. Maximum distances moved are generally difficult to establish for any species, but California tiger salamanders have been recorded to disperse 1.2 mi (2 kilometers (km)) from breeding ponds. California tiger salamanders are known to travel between breeding ponds; one study found that 20 to 25 percent of the individuals captured at one pond were recaptured later at ponds approximately 1,900 and 2,200 ft away (Trenham
On the Stanford University campus, California tiger salamanders have moved up to 1 mi from their natal/breeding ponds. In Santa Barbara County, an adult California tiger salamander was found more than 1.2 mi from a breeding pond (S. Sweet, in litt. 1998). In addition to traveling long distances during migration to or dispersal from ponds, California tiger salamanders actually reside in burrows that are far from ponds. In Santa Barbara County, an adult California tiger salamander was seen in the mouth of a burrow 1,900 ft from the nearest known breeding pond in June, a month when California tiger salamander dispersal is unlikely (Rob Schoenholtz, biologist, LSA Associates, pers. comm. 2002). At one site in Contra Costa County, hundreds of California tiger salamanders have been captured three years in a row in upland habitat approximately 0.5 mi (2,640 ft) from the nearest breeding pond (Sue Orloff, biologist, IBIS Environmental, in litt. 2003).
Although the observations above show that California tiger salamanders can travel far, typically they stay closer to breeding ponds. Evidence suggests that juvenile California tiger salamanders disperse further into upland habitats than adult California tiger salamanders. A trapping study conducted in Solano County during winter 2002–03 found that juveniles used upland habitats further from breeding ponds than adults (Trenham and Shaffer, unpublished manuscript). More juvenile salamanders were captured at distances of 328, 656, and 1,312 ft (100, 200 and 400 meters (m), respectively) from a breeding pond than at 164 ft (50 m). Large numbers (approximately 20 percent of total captures) were found 1,312 ft (400 m) from a breeding pond. Fitting a distribution curve to the data revealed that 95 percent of juvenile salamanders could be found within 2,099 ft (640 m) of the pond, with the remaining 5 percent being found at even greater distances. Preliminary results from the 2003–04 trapping efforts detected juvenile California tiger salamanders at even further distances, with a large proportion of the total salamanders caught at 2,297 ft (700 m) from the breeding pond (Trenham
Post-breeding movements away from breeding ponds by adults appear to be much smaller. During post-breeding emigration, radio-equipped adult California tiger salamanders were tracked to burrows 62 to 813 ft (19 to 248 m) from their breeding ponds (Trenham, 2001). These reduced movements may be due to adult California tiger salamanders having depleted physical reserves post-breeding, or also due to the drier weather conditions that can occur during the period when adults leave the ponds.
The spatial distribution of California tiger salamanders in the uplands surrounding breeding ponds is a key issue for conservation planning. Although it might be supposed that California tiger salamanders will move only short distances if abundant burrows are found near their ponds, this is not the case. In the aforementioned study in Solano County, while abundant burrows are available near the pond, a nearly equal number of California tiger salamanders were captured at 328, 656, and 1,312 ft (100, 200 and 400 m, respectively) from the breeding pond (Trenham and Shaffer, unpublished manuscript). Similarly, Trenham (2001) tracked salamanders to burrows up to 814 ft (248 m) from a breeding pond, although burrows were abundant at distances nearer to the pond. In addition, rather than staying in a single burrow, most individuals used several successive burrows at increasing distances from the pond.
Although the studies discussed above provide an approximation of the distances that California tiger salamanders regularly move from their breeding ponds, upland habitat features will drive the details of movements in a particular landscape. Unlike other ambystomatid salamanders, California tiger salamanders and other tiger salamanders are grassland animals, and do not favor forested areas as corridors for movement or long-term residence. Trenham (2001) found that radio-tracked adults favored grasslands with scattered large oaks, over more densely wooded areas. A drift-fence survey at a Santa Barbara County pond that is bordered by a strawberry field found that many emigrating juveniles moved towards the strawberry field; however, no adults were captured entering the pond from this direction. Most of the California tiger salamanders entered the pond from extensive, overgrazed grassy flats rather than sandhill or eucalyptus habitats in other quadrants (Steve Sykes, University of California at Santa Barbara, unpublished data 2003).
Based on radio-tracked adults, there is no indication that certain habitat types are favored as corridors for terrestrial movements (Trenham 2001). In addition, at two ponds completely encircled by drift fences and pitfall traps, captures of arriving adults and dispersing new metamorphs were
Most California tiger salamanders breed in the pond where they hatched and developed as larvae, and we refer to these aggregations at specific breeding ponds as populations. Because random events, such as disease or droughts, may occasionally extirpate local populations (
Adults may migrate long distances between summering and breeding sites. The distance from breeding sites may depend on local topography and vegetation, the distribution of ground squirrel or other rodent burrows, and climatic conditions (Stebbins 1989; Hunt 1998). Observations of California tiger salamanders on the surface away from ponds (presumably migrating to or from the breeding pond, moving from one burrow to another, or in search of food) almost inevitably coincide with recent rainfall, suggesting that surface movement is limited to periods of precipitation.
For a sustainable breeding population to exist, we need to ensure that a sufficient fraction of the adult and juvenile salamanders hatched in a given pond survive their excursions into the surrounding uplands and return to breed again. Taylor and Scott (1997) determined that for sustainable populations of a demographically similar species,
On September 18, 1985, we published the Vertebrate Notice of Review (NOR) (50 FR 37958), which included the California tiger salamander as a category 2 candidate species for possible future listing as threatened or endangered. Category 2 candidates were those taxa for which information contained in our files indicated that listing may be appropriate but for which additional data were needed to support a listing proposal. The January 6, 1989, and November 21, 1991, candidate NORs (54 FR 554 and 56 FR 58804, respectively) also included the California tiger salamander as a category 2 candidate, soliciting information on the status of the species.
On February 21, 1992, we received a petition from Dr. H. Bradley Shaffer of the University of California at Davis, to list the California tiger salamander as an endangered species. We published a 90-day petition finding on November 19, 1992 (57 FR 54545), concluding that the petition presented substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. On April 18, 1994, we published a 12-month petition finding (59 FR 18353) that the listing of the California tiger salamander was warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions. We elevated the species to category 1 status at that time, which was reflected in the November 15, 1994, Animal NOR (59 FR 58982). Category 1 candidates were those taxa for which we had on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support preparation of listing proposals. On April 10, 1995, Pub. L. 104–6 imposed a moratorium on listings and critical habitat designations and rescinded $1.5 million funding from our listing program. The moratorium was lifted and listing funding was restored through passage of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act on April 26, 1996. We discontinued the use of different categories of candidates in the NOR published February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7596), and defined “candidate species” as those meeting the definition of former category 1. We maintained the California tiger salamander as a candidate species in that NOR, as well as in subsequent NORs published on September 19, 1997 (62 FR 49398), October 25, 1999 (64 FR 57533), and October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54808).
On January 19, 2000, we published an emergency rule listing the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander as endangered (65 FR 3096) together with a proposed rule to list the DPS as endangered (65 FR 3110). On September 21, 2000, we listed the Santa Barbara County DPS as endangered (65 FR 57242). On May 23, 2003, we published a proposed rule (1) to list the Central California DPS of the California tiger salamander as a threatened species, (2) to downlist both the Santa Barbara County and the Sonoma County DPSs of the California tiger salamander from endangered to threatened status, and (3) to exempt existing routine ranching operations under Section 4(d) of the Act from the take prohibition of section 9 of the Act in the event we list the Central California DPS and reclassify either the Santa Barbara County or Sonoma County DPSs from endangered to threatened (68 FR 28648). We have not yet published final decisions on any of the proposals in this proposed rule.
On February 25, 2003, the Environmental Defense Center and Center for Biological Diversity filed a complaint challenging our failure to designate critical habitat for the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander (
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as—(i) the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. “Conservation” means the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to the point at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 requires consultation on Federal actions that are likely to
To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat must first be “essential to the conservation of the species.” Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs of the species (
Section 4 requires that we designate critical habitat at the time of listing and based on what we know at the time of the designation. When we designate critical habitat at the time of listing or under short court-ordered deadlines, we will often not have sufficient information to identify all areas of critical habitat. We are required, nevertheless, to make a decision and thus must base our designations on what, at the time of designation, we know to be critical habitat.
Within the geographic area occupied by the species, we will designate only areas currently known to be essential. Essential areas should already have the features and habitat characteristics that are necessary to sustain the species. We will not speculate about what areas might be found to be essential if better information became available, or what areas may become essential over time. If the information available at the time of designation does not show that an area provides essential life cycle needs of the species, then the area should not be included in the critical habitat designation. Within the geographic area occupied by the species, we will not designate areas that do not now have the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b), that provide essential life cycle needs of the species. We have also excluded from this proposal some areas within the range of the species where California tiger salamanders are currently found, areas of suitable habitat where they might potentially occur, and some localities where they historically occurred. Only areas considered essential to the conservation of the species are included in this proposal.
Our regulations state that, “The Secretary shall designate as critical habitat areas outside the geographic area presently occupied by the species only when a designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species' (50 CFR 424.12(e)). Accordingly, when the best available scientific and commercial data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the species so require, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species.
Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act, published in the
Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to be essential for the conservation of the species. For these reasons, all should understand that critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is unimportant to California tiger salamanders. Areas outside the critical habitat designation will continue to be subject to conservation actions that may be implemented under section 7(a)(1), and to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the section 9 take prohibition, as determined on the basis of the best available information at the time of the action. We specifically anticipate that federally funded or assisted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
In determining areas that are essential to conserve the California tiger salamander, we used the best scientific and commercial data available. We have reviewed the overall approach to the conservation of the California tiger salamander undertaken by local, State, and Federal agencies operating within the species' range since its listing in 2000, and recommended to us by the California tiger salamander recovery team.
We have also reviewed available information that pertains to the habitat requirements of this species. The material included data in reports submitted during section 7 consultations and by biologists holding section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits; research published in peer-reviewed articles and presented in academic theses and agency reports; and regional Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages.
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical habitat, we are required to base critical habitat determinations on the best scientific and commercial data available and to consider those physical and biological features (primary constituent elements (PCEs)) that are essential to the conservation of the species, and that may require special management considerations and protection. These include, but are not limited to: space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of
The areas proposed for designation as critical habitat for the California tiger salamander are designed to provide sufficient aquatic habitat for breeding and upland habitat as refugia for adults to maintain and sustain populations of California tiger salamanders throughout their range, and provide those habitat components essential for the conservation of the species. Due to the complex life history and dispersal capabilities of California tiger salamanders, and the dynamic nature of the environments in which they are found, the primary constituent elements described below should be found throughout the units that are being designated as critical habitat. Special management, such as habitat rehabilitation efforts (
Critical habitat includes: essential aquatic habitat, essential upland nonbreeding season habitat with underground refugia, and dispersal habitat connecting occupied California tiger salamander locations to each other.
Based on our current knowledge of the life history and ecology of the species and the relationship of its essential life history functions to its habitat, as summarized above in the
(1) Standing bodies of fresh water, including natural and man-made (
(2) Barrier-free uplands adjacent to breeding ponds that contain small mammal burrows, including but not limited to burrows created by the California ground squirrel (
(3) Upland areas between breeding locations (PCE 1) and areas with small mammal burrows (PCE 2) that allow for dispersal among such sites.
We describe the relationship between each of these PCEs and the conservation of the salamander in more detail below.
The essential aquatic habitat described as the first PCE is essential for California tiger salamander breeding and for providing space, food, and cover necessary to sustain early life history stages of California tiger salamanders. Breeding habitat consists of fresh water bodies, including natural and man-made (
Associated upland habitat containing underground refugia described as the second PCE is essential for the survival of adult California tiger salamanders and juveniles that have recently undergone metamorphosis. Adult and juvenile California tiger salamanders are terrestrial, and they enter aquatic habitats only for short periods of time to breed. For the majority of their life cycle, California tiger salamanders depend for survival on upland habitats containing underground refugia in the form of small mammal burrows. These underground refugia provide protection from the hot, dry weather typical of Santa Barbara County in the nonbreeding season. California tiger salamanders also find food in small mammal burrows and rely on the burrows for protection from predators. The presence of small burrowing mammal populations is essential for constructing and maintaining burrows.
The dispersal habitat described as the third PCE is essential for the conservation of the California tiger salamander. Protecting the ability of California tiger salamanders to move freely across the landscape in search of breeding ponds is essential in maintaining gene flow and for recolonization of sites that are temporarily extirpated. Lifetime reproductive success for California and other tiger salamanders is low. Trenham
Dispersal habitat described as the third PCE is also essential in preserving the California tiger salamander's population structure. The life history and ecology of the California tiger salamander make it likely that this species has a metapopulation structure (Hanski and Gilpin 1991). A metapopulation is a set of local populations or breeding sites within an area, where typically migration from one local population or breeding site to other areas containing suitable habitat is possible, but not routine. Movement between areas containing suitable habitat (
Essential dispersal habitat generally consists of upland areas adjacent to essential aquatic habitat that are not isolated from breeding ponds by barriers that California tiger salamanders cannot cross. Essential dispersal habitat provides connectivity among California tiger salamander breeding ponds. While California tiger salamanders can bypass many obstacles, and do not require a particular type of habitat for dispersal, the habitat connecting essential aquatic habitat must be free of barriers (
In summary, the primary constituent elements consist of three components. At a minimum, this will include suitable breeding locations and associated uplands surrounding these water bodies that are connected by dispersal habitat that is free of barriers.
To identify areas that are essential to the conservation of the California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County, we first looked at the potential range of the species, as was mapped in spring of 2000 by biologists who had conducted California tiger salamander surveys throughout Santa Barbara County. The boundaries of the potential range were developed based on topography, geology, and survey information. In some areas (
We then focused on areas within the range where we had credible records (
Conserving California tiger salamanders over the long term requires a three-pronged approach: (1) Protecting the hydrology and water quality of breeding pools and ponds; (2) retaining or providing for connectivity between breeding locations for genetic exchange and recolonization; and (3) protecting sufficient upland habitat around each breeding location to allow for high enough adult survival to maintain a breeding population over the long term. An explanation of how we determined the amount of upland habitat that is essential for the conservation of the California tiger salamander in each critical habitat unit is described in more detail below.
Once we identified the known breeding locations, we mapped the upland watershed of each pond based on aerial photographs taken in 2002 (AirPhotoUSA Inc. 2002) overlain with topographic relief lines. Protecting the watersheds of breeding ponds is essential for two reasons: (1) To ensure that the amount of water entering the pond is not altered too much (which can allow for colonization of breeding sites by bullfrogs and fish, which can prey upon California tiger salamander eggs and larvae); and (2) to preserve water quality by minimizing the entry of sediments and other contaminants to the breeding ponds. Therefore, our proposed critical habitat boundaries include the watersheds of all known breeding ponds.
We then identified the upland habitat surrounding the ponds where juvenile and adult California tiger salamanders live during the majority of their life cycle. To determine a general guideline for the amount of upland habitat necessary to support a population of adult California tiger salamanders, we reviewed the primary literature regarding California tiger salamander upland habitat use, including Trenham (2000), Trenham
Extensive data indicate that California tiger salamanders do not remain primarily in burrows close to breeding ponds, but instead move some distance out into the surrounding landscape. As described in the Background section, California tiger salamanders have been found up to 1.2 mi (2 kms) from breeding ponds. However, most California tiger salamanders are found closer to the ponds. Two studies conducted in Monterey and Solano Counties provide the best available data on upland movement distances. First, the mark-recapture study of Trenham
We used 2,200 ft or 350 ac as a guide for the amount of upland habitat around known breeding locations to be mapped as critical habitat for the purposes of preserving California tiger salamanders within small mammal burrows (PCE 2). However, although the studies discussed above provide an approximation of the distances that California tiger salamanders can move from their breeding ponds in search of suitable upland refugia, we recognize that upland habitat features will influence California tiger salamander
In some cases, we extended the boundary of critical habitat beyond 2,200 ft if (1) potential but unsurveyed breeding locations were present that would augment California tiger salamander populations; (2) no barriers to California tiger salamander dispersal were present and the habitat was suitable; (3) watershed boundaries for known breeding ponds exceed distances of 2,200 ft; or (4) the upland area between breeding ponds was conducive to California tiger salamander travel because dispersal between ponds within the units is essential for California tiger salamander gene flow.
We excluded most areas of frequently harvested agricultural lands from the boundaries of critical habitat areas. Agricultural lands were only included if they were directly adjacent to known breeding ponds, thereby substantially reducing upland refugia for California tiger salamanders breeding in that pond, or were important for connectivity between known breeding locations, or in the case of the two units within the Santa Maria Valley, so little California tiger salamander upland habitat is left that restoration is necessary to provide sufficient upland refugia to sustain a population of adult California tiger salamanders.
To determine the areas to be mapped within each unit for the purposes of dispersal (
In one unit (the eastern Santa Maria Unit) we propose to include a dispersal corridor that extends a greater distance than 0.70 mi (1,158 m) between breeding locations. Given the observations by S. Sweet (
We are proposing to designate critical habitat on lands that are considered essential to the conservation of the California tiger salamander. These areas have the primary constituent elements described above.
All of the known locations for the California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County occur on non-Federal and private lands. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes us to issue permits for the take of listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activities. An incidental take permit application must be supported by a habitat conservation plan (HCP) that identifies conservation measures that the permittee agrees to implement for the species to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the requested incidental take. We often exclude non-Federal public lands and private lands that are covered by an existing operative HCP and executed implementation agreement (IA) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from designated critical habitat because the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion as discussed in section 4(b)(2) of the Act. In the case of the California tiger salamander, no lands are covered by an existing operative HCP. We are aware of three HCPs under development; however, these draft HCPs are not proposed for exclusion because we have not yet made an initial determination that they meet our issuance criteria and are ready for public notice and comment.
When defining critical habitat boundaries, we made an effort to exclude all developed areas, such as towns, housing developments, and other lands unlikely to contain primary constituent elements essential for California tiger salamander conservation. However, our minimum mapping unit does not exclude all developed lands, such as lands supporting outbuildings, paddocks, roads, paved areas, lawns, and other lands unlikely to contain the primary constituent elements. Federal actions limited to these areas would not trigger a section 7 consultation, unless they affect the species and/or the primary constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat.
In summary, we propose six areas where populations of California tiger salamander are known to occur as critical habitat because we believe protection of those areas is essential to the conservation of the species. We then mapped as critical habitat sufficient habitat to ensure the conservation of the California tiger salamander.
Management of the critical habitat areas in a manner that provides for the conservation of the California tiger salamander is essential. Areas in need of management include not only the immediate locations where the species may be present, but additional areas adjacent to these that can provide for normal population fluctuations that may occur in response to natural and unpredictable events. The California tiger salamander may be dependent upon habitat components beyond the immediate areas where individuals of the species occur, if these areas support the presence of small mammals or are important in maintaining ecological processes such as hydrology, expansion of distribution, recolonization, and maintenance of natural predator-prey relationships.
Our recommendations for special management that is needed for the critical habitat of the California tiger salamander are:
(1) Aquatic habitats should be free of non-native and introduced predators, such as bullfrogs and fish. We recommend that bullfrogs and fish within known or potential breeding ponds for the California tiger salamander should be removed. We recommend that human-made stockponds managed to prevent colonization by these predators.
(2) Disturbance to aquatic habitats should be minimized during the breeding season to minimize disturbance to the California tiger salamander's more sensitive life stages, and to reduce sedimentation and erosion into water bodies. Researchers and monitors should only enter ponds during the breeding season when the conservation benefits of obtaining scientific information outweigh the negative effects of disturbance.
(3) We recommend that stock pond maintenance occur after the breeding season.
(4) Aquatic habitats should be protected from contamination by chemicals such as those used for agricultural purposes. Operators should use best management practices to avoid contaminating wetlands. Ranchers should avoid placing salt licks for livestock adjacent to breeding ponds.
(5) Small mammal populations should be not be eliminated to provide California tiger salamanders with essential underground refugia used for foraging, protection from predators, and shelter from the elements.
(6) Upland habitats between breeding ponds should be managed to allow for successful California tiger salamander dispersal and to minimize impassable barriers. Sources of mortality such as roads should be designed to allow for safe California tiger salamander passage.
We are proposing six units as critical habitat for the California tiger salamander. The critical habitat areas described below constitute our best assessment at this time of the areas essential for the conservation of the California tiger salamander. The six areas designated as critical habitat are: (1) Western Santa Maria/Orcutt; (2) eastern Santa Maria; (3) western Los Alamos/Careaga; (4) eastern Los Alamos; (5) Purisima Hills; and (6) Santa Rita.
The approximate area encompassed within each proposed critical habitat unit is shown in Table 1.
Critical habitat includes California tiger salamander habitat throughout the species' range in Santa Barbara County, California. Brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they are essential for the conservation of the California tiger salamander, are presented below. Each unit contains essential aquatic, upland, and dispersal habitat. Each unit is occupied by California tiger salamanders based upon observations recorded since 2000.
Unit 1 consists of 4,349 ac (1,760 ha) west and southwest of the City of Santa Maria, mostly in unincorporated areas of the County and the community of Orcutt. This area encompasses the known California tiger salamander breeding sites extending from the Casmalia Hills on the south to the Santa Maria Airport on the north and from west of Black Road eastward to Highway 135. The unit contains 11 known California tiger salamander breeding ponds and several water bodies that could potentially support breeding California tiger salamanders but that have never been surveyed.
Seven of the known breeding ponds in this unit occur on the Orcutt Dune Sheet. The Orcutt Dune Sheet is an ancient windblown sand deposit that covers the southern one-half to two-thirds of the Santa Maria Valley (Hunt 1993). All natural California tiger salamander breeding sites occurring on the sheet are classified as dunal or deflation pools and ponds, a type of California tiger salamander breeding pond occurring only within the two units within the Santa Maria Valley. The four remaining known ponds occur along the base of the Casmalia Hills, just off the southwestern edge of the Orcutt Dune Sheet.
Based on an examination of aerial photographs taken in the late 1920's and late 1930's, the Orcutt Dune Sheet contained more potential breeding sites for California tiger salamanders than all other occupied habitat in Santa Barbara County combined. This area has suffered the greatest loss of potential California tiger salamander breeding and upland habitat. At least 500 vernal wetlands were present on the Orcutt Dune Sheet in 1938 aerial photographs, less than 150 were present in 2000. This number of ponds represents a 75 percent loss of these habitats (Larry Hunt, biological consultant, pers. comm. 2003).
Population growth and the concomitant residential and commercial development are the greatest threat to California tiger salamanders within this unit. The City of Santa Maria currently sustains a population of 82,148 people and is anticipated to reach a population of 110,800 people by 2020, with an annual growth rate of 1.8 percent (Santa Barbara County Association of Governments 2002). Annexations to further development are proposed in the remaining California tiger salamander habitat (Marc Bierdzinski, Santa Maria Community Development Department 2003).
Several development projects have been proposed within the Unit. The Santa Maria Airport District proposes to build a 400-ac (162-ha) research park and golf course just south of the airport on a parcel with three known California tiger salamander breeding ponds (Rincon 2002). The Orcutt Community Plan identifies Key Site 22 as a site for 60 percent buildout to a maximum of 3,000 units of dwellings (Santa Barbara County 2002). This site lies entirely within the critical habitat unit. Additional proposed development projects include Union Valley Parkway (City of Santa Maria 2003) and expansion of the Laguna County Sanitation District's wastewater treatment plan.
This unit is essential to the conservation of the California tiger salamander because it constitutes the largest number of occupied ponds on the Orcutt Dune Sheet, a rare and disappearing habitat type. California tiger salamanders in this location may be adapted to unique conditions not found in other units. It is critical for the
This unit also requires special management to conserve California tiger salamanders. One pond is known to have introduced fish, another is subject to berm failure, and bullfrogs breed in close proximity to a third site. Addressing these threats through special management is essential for the conservation of the California tiger salamander.
This unit covers a portion of the eastern half of the Orcutt Dune Sheet, but is separated from the western Santa Maria Valley unit by a broad area of urban and agricultural development, including State Highways 135 and 101. The unit is 2,985 ac (1,208 ha) in size and is bordered by State Highway 101 on the west, the Solomon Hills on the south, the Sisquoc River on the east, and the Santa Maria River floodplain on the north. Although this area is at least as large as the area encompassed by the western Santa Maria Valley populations, only four known ponds exist here. All the ponds have had substantial alterations to the surrounding upland habitats, and substantial fragmentation of the habitat between breeding ponds has occurred. Restoration of upland habitat and the creation of additional breeding ponds within this unit will be essential to allow a self-sustaining California tiger salamander population to persist. At least 10 additional ponds that appear suitable for California tiger salamander breeding exist within the unit.
California tiger salamander upland habitat in this area has experienced widespread losses due to the conversion of rangeland for agricultural purposes. Some proposed projects further threaten the remaining California tiger salamander habitat, including the 2000-ac Bradley Ranch proposed development project (John L. Wallace & Associates 2002), scattered low-density residential development, two soil remediation projects, and the construction of a radio tower.
All of the extant and most of the potential ponds lie on the Orcutt Dune Sheet at an average elevation of 530 ft above sea level (range = 390–601 ft above sea level). Because this unit represents one of only two units on the Orcutt Dune sheet, it is essential to the conservation of the species in that California tiger salamanders here are adapted to conditions not found in two-thirds of its range. The unit requires special management in the form of restoration, erosion control, and implementation of measures to minimize the number of California tiger salamanders killed on roads. The unit also represents an area that in large part is not slated for residential development, in contrast to the western Santa Maria area. Because of this and the fact that many of the converted upland habitats remain as open space, this unit has high restoration potential.
This unit consists of 2,181 ac (883 ha) to the west of Highway 101, bordered on the west by the Careaga Divide. This unit includes the location where the California tiger salamander was first discovered in Santa Barbara County in the 1960s. Nine ponds within this unit have been documented as breeding habitat by California tiger salamanders. Five of these ponds are natural ponds, three are human-made bermed agricultural/oil field impoundments, and one is a scour pool situated in a tributary to Canada de Las Flores Creek. Several other agricultural impoundments are located within dispersal distance of the California tiger salamander breeding ponds in the western Los Alamos valley. These human-made ponds may also be used by California tiger salamanders for breeding.
In contrast to the dunal or deflation ponds found in the two units to the north within the Santa Maria Valley, the natural breeding ponds within the Western Los Alamos/Careaga Unit are found in structural basin ponds. These ponds occur in the valleys or depressions along the axes of the synclines. The natural ponds within the unit occur along the axis of the Los Alamos Syncline and an unnamed syncline occurring parallel to and west of the Los Alamos Syncline.
The area in the southeastern half of the unit was proposed for conversion to vineyards. The landowner in this area supports California tiger salamander conservation and has been working with the lessee to develop a vineyard proposal that would conserve California tiger salamanders breeding in the known ponds.
This unit is essential to the conservation of the California tiger salamander because it contains some of the highest-quality natural California tiger salamander breeding pools remaining in the County. The Careaga Divide pond, located on the western side of the unit, is one of the most unique and pristine vernal ponds where California tiger salamanders breed. The wetland is unusual in that it is enclosed on two sides by an extensive and dense coast live oak woodland and on the north and east by coastal sage scrub and grasslands. The unit also provides large blocks of continuous unfragmented upland habitat with few known sources of mortality, all occurring within a working rangeland landscape. The unit requires special management in the form of fish removal from at least one pond and sediment control at three ponds.
This unit consists of 1,302 ac (527 ha) on the Los Robles Ranch, which is located south of Highway 101 and southeast of the town of Los Alamos. The population is currently comprised of four ponds that have been used by California tiger salamanders for breeding. Two of the ponds are natural structural basin ponds found in depressions that are believed to be associated with the inferred location of the Los Alamos Syncline (Dibblee 1993). The other two ponds are bermed agricultural impoundments located in an unnamed, intermittent drainage located 1.0 to 1.5 mi southeast of the two natural ponds. Although there are three other unsurveyed human-made ponds in the immediate vicinity of the eastern Los Alamos population, only one is believed to have a hydrologic regime that could support breeding by California tiger salamanders. This bermed vineyard reservoir is located on the north side of the small hill that borders the northeast side of Los Robles Pond 1.
The property within the Unit was purchased in the 1990s for the purpose of vineyard development. California tiger salamanders were discovered on the property shortly after the listing in 2000 (Monk and Associates 2000). The property owner approached us about developing an HCP to cover vineyard installation in 2001; however, we have not received a permit application pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) for the site.
Given the small number of known breeding populations, this unit is essential for the conservation of the California tiger salamander because, in spite of its location adjacent to State Highway 101, the habitat within this unit is of high quality. In addition, the contiguous block of habitat within the unit is free of fragmentation and is of sufficient size to maintain a self-sustaining population of California tiger salamanders. Furthermore, the populations within this unit constitute the easternmost location of the species.
The unit requires special management in the form of maintenance of the two human-made breeding ponds, measures to reduce road mortality, and preservation of water quality.
Unit 5 consists of 2,359 ac (955 ha) along the crest and south slope of the west-central portion of the Purisima Hills. The unit encompasses 14 of the 16 documented breeding ponds in the subpopulation. The portion of the Purisima Hills that contains suitable habitat lies upon the lower Careaga Formation, bounded to the east-southeast by outcrops of Sisquoc Formation, and bounded to the west-northwest by badlands topography of sandier horizons within the upper Careaga Formation. Neither the Sisquoc nor the upper Careaga formations will retain water in unlined ponds. Pond elevations range from 500 to 1400 ft.
The documented breeding localities are all stock ponds, most of which were constructed in the mid to late 1950s (Thomas Silva, Sr., pers. comm. 2001); of these, only one may have been based on a preexisting natural depression. The unit also contains a large natural vernal lake referred to as Laguna Seca. Although Laguna Seca did not contain California tiger salamanders during surveys conducted in 2002, it was likely the natural source of California tiger salamanders for the human-made ponds in the Purisima Hills to the south and southwest of the pond. Largemouth bass (
This unit is essential for the conservation of the California tiger salamander. Although the majority of occupied ponds are human made and thus require frequent maintenance, the unit is the most remote of all the units and has the fewest documented threats. Because of the steepness of the topography, conversion to farmland or high-intensity development is not feasible. The unit is unique in that it is steeper terrain and is more densely vegetated than all other units. This location contains the only known California tiger salamander breeding ponds completely surrounded by coastal sage chaparral vegetation. Of the 16 ponds, 4 are surrounded by grasslands, 3 are enclosed in chaparral, and the remainder have mixed grassland/chaparral habitats within a 328-ft (100-m) radius (2 of these 9 also have oak woodland components). Few other locations in Santa Barbara are within chaparral or mixed chaparral habitats. Therefore, California tiger salamanders within this unit are adapted to unique habitat conditions.
The Purisima Unit is also essential in that it provides a linkage between the Santa Rita Unit to the southwest and the Western Los Alamos/Careaga Unit to the north. Although many of the units may be permanently separated from each other by urban development and State Highway 101, these three units still likely retain some connectivity. Preliminary genetic analyses of five loci indicate high levels of gene exchange between the Purisima and Western Los Alamos units, despite a distance of almost 4 mi between these units (Wes Savage, University of California at Davis, unpublished data). Several stockponds which have never been surveyed lie between the units; some of these ponds are likely occupied by California tiger salamanders and provide genetic exchange between the two proposed critical habitat units. The Santa Rita Unit is a similar distance from the Purisima Unit, but appears to have slightly less genetic exchange than the other two units (W. Savage, unpublished data).
The unit also requires special management. Because the ponds are human-made stock ponds, they are subject to failure. Two potential locations have breached dams and do not hold water, two are silted up, and four dry out soon after rainfall events. Special management can restore these ponds and augment the California tiger salamander populations within the unit. Special management is also needed to remove introduced fish from Laguna Seca.
This 744-ac (301 ha) unit constitutes the southernmost locality for California tiger salamanders in Santa Barbara County. The unit is bisected by Highway 246, a heavily traveled thoroughfare between the towns of Buellton and Lompoc. Two confirmed breeding locations (representing three ponds) lie in the general Santa Rita Valley; however, one of these is a human-made pond isolated from other units and is not included within the boundaries of critical habitat. The other confirmed breeding locality consists of two hydrobasins within 50 ft of one another and adjacent to Highway 246. Adult California tiger salamanders were often found dead on roads after rain events during the 1980s. Three ponds on a neighboring property to the east and two ponds on the south side of Highway 246 likely formed a complex with this pond in the past; however, the ponds to the east were degraded by introduced fish and vineyards, while Highway 246 forms a substantial barrier to the southern ponds. The ponds south of Highway 246 have never been surveyed for California tiger salamanders. Although one landowner reported finding a California tiger salamander in a water pump in 2000, we have been unable to obtain permission to conduct surveys to confirm or refute this record.
The known ponds are based on natural features developed on an active syncline in the Careaga Formation east of the Santa Rita-Drum Canyon divide along the north side of California Highway 246. The ponds are natural but have been excavated so that the smaller pond appears to retain water year round.
This unit is essential to the conservation of the California tiger salamander because it constitutes the only extant population remaining within the Santa Rita valley. As stated previously, given the small number of remaining breeding locations, all six units are essential. In addition, due to the numbers of salamanders found dead on the roads in the 1980s, the ponds were likely productive in the past. Highway 246 constitutes the main threat to the breeding location; furthermore, Caltrans has proposed to widen this road, which would substantially infringe upon the footprint of the ponds. Even without widening, the mortality by vehicular traffic and contaminated runoff entering the pond provide substantial threats to the breeding site.
The unit requires special management. Based on past observations, mosquitofish (
Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In our regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define destruction or adverse modification as “a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but are not limited to: alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to be critical.” However, in a March 15, 2001, decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. Conference reports provide conservation recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The conservation recommendations in a conference report are advisory. If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into consultation with us. Through this consultation, we would ensure that the permitted actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable. “Reasonable and prudent alternatives” are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action, that are consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically feasible, and that the Director believes would avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical habitat is subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement or control over the action or such discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law. Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of consultation or conference with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat. Conference reports assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action, and may include recommendations on actions to eliminate conflicts with, or adverse modifications to, proposed critical habitat. The conservation recommendations in a conference report are advisory.
We may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal agency. Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain an opinion that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if critical habitat were designated. We may adopt the formal conference report as the biological opinion when the critical habitat is designated, if no substantial new information or changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
Activities on Federal lands that may affect the California tiger salamander or its critical habitat will require section 7 consultation. Activities on private or State lands requiring a permit from a Federal agency, such as a permit from the Army Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from the Service, or some other Federal action, including funding (
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat include those that appreciably reduce the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of the California tiger salamander. Within critical habitat, this pertains only to those areas containing primary constituent elements. We note that such activities may also jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
To properly portray the effects of critical habitat designation, we must first compare the section 7 requirements for actions that may affect critical habitat with the requirements for actions that may affect a listed species.
Common to both definitions is an appreciable detrimental effect on both survival and recovery of a listed species. Given the similarity of these definitions, actions likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat would almost always result in jeopardy to the species concerned, particularly when the area of the proposed action is occupied by the species concerned. Designation of critical habitat in areas occupied by the California tiger salamander is not likely to result in a regulatory burden above that already in place due to the presence of the listed species.
Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in areas currently occupied by the species to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. These actions include, but are not limited to:
(1) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the United States by the Army Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
(2) Regulation of water flows, damming, diversion, and channelization by any Federal agency;
(3) Road construction and maintenance, right-of-way designation, and regulation funded or permitted by the Federal Highway Administration;
(4) Voluntary conservation measures by private landowners funded by the Natural Resources Conservation Service;
(5) Regulation of airport improvement activities by the Federal Aviation Administration;
(6) Licensing of construction of communication sites by the Federal Communications Commission; and,
(7) Funding of activities by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Highway Administration, or any other Federal agency.
All lands proposed for designation as critical habitat are within the geographic area occupied by the species (based on observations made within the last 3 years), and are likely to be used by the California tiger salamander, whether for foraging, breeding, growth of larvae and juveniles, dispersal, migration, genetic exchange, or sheltering. Thus, we consider all critical habitat units to be occupied by the species. Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in areas currently occupied by the species or if the species may be affected by the action to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Therefore, we believe that the designation of critical habitat is not likely to result in a significant regulatory burden above that already in place due to the presence of the listed species. Few additional consultations are likely to be conducted due to the designation of critical habitat. Nevertheless, at any given time some portions of a unit may not be occupied by California tiger salamanders, due to climatic fluctuations, changes in population numbers, flood events, or other causes. Additional consultations could arise if a project is proposed within an unoccupied portion of a critical habitat unit and the primary constituent elements may be adversely affected by the project.
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by the species on which are found those physical and biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations and protection. As such, for an area to be designated as critical habitat for a species, it must meet both provisions of the definition. In those cases where a specific area does not provide those physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species, it has been our policy to not include the area in designated critical habitat. Likewise, if an area determined to be biologically essential has an adequate management plan that covers the species, then special management and protection are already being provided. These areas would not meet the second provision of the definition and would not be proposed as critical habitat.
We consider a current plan to provide adequate management or protection if it meets three criteria: (1) The plan is complete and provides a conservation benefit to the species (
Further, section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat shall be designated, and revised, on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. An area may be excluded from critical habitat if it is determined that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying a particular area as critical habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. Consequently, we may exclude an area from critical habitat based on economic impacts, or other relevant impacts such as preservation of conservation partnerships or military readiness considerations, if we determine that the benefits of excluding an area from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including the area in critical habitat, provided that exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
In summary, we use both the definitions in section 3(5)(A) and the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act to evaluate those specific areas that are proposed for designation as critical habitat as well as for those areas that are subsequently finalized (
We have not excluded any lands from this proposal pursuant to section 3(5)(A) and 4(b)(2) of the Act. No HCPs that
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information available and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as part of critical habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat if such exclusion would result in the extinction of the species.
An analysis of the economic impacts of proposing critical habitat for the California tiger salamander is being prepared. We will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis as soon as it is completed, at which time we will seek public review and comment. At that time, copies of the draft economic analysis will be available for downloading from the Internet at
In accordance with our joint policy published in the
We will consider all comments and information received during the comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this proposal.
The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested. Requests for public hearings must be made in writing at least 15 days prior to the close of the public comment period. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings in the
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations and notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain technical jargon that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposed rule (grouping and order of the sections, use of headings, paragraphing, and so forth) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description of the notice in the
Send a copy of any comments on how we could make this proposed rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may e-mail your comments to this address:
This document has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in accordance with Executive Order 12866. OMB makes the final determination under Executive Order 12866. We are preparing a draft economic analysis of this proposed action, which will be available for public comment, to determine the economic consequences of designating the specific area as critical habitat.
Within these areas, the types of Federal actions or authorized activities that we have identified as potential concerns are:
(1) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the United States by the Army Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
(2) Regulation of water flows, damming, diversion, and channelization by any Federal agency;
(3) Road construction and maintenance, right-of-way designation, and regulation funded or permitted by the Federal Highways Administration;
(4) Voluntary conservation measures by private landowners funded by the Natural Resources Conservation Service;
(5) Regulation of airport improvement activities by the Federal Aviation Administration;
(6) Licensing of construction of communication sites by the Federal Communications Commission; and,
(7) Funding of activities by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Highway Administration, or any other Federal agency.
The availability of the draft economic analysis will be announced in the
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations,
To determine if the rule would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities (
If this critical habitat designation is finalized, Federal agencies must consult with us if their activities may affect designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process.
Since the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander was listed (2000), we have conducted approximately five formal consultations involving this species. These formal consultations, which all involved Federal actions, included a sewer line installation, an expansion and upgrade of wastewater treatment facilities, pond restoration activities, one bridge replacement, and one culvert removal. These five consultations resulted in non-jeopardy biological opinions.
We also conducted approximately 21 informal consultations since this species was listed. These informal consultations concerned activities such as repair, maintenance, or improvement of drainage and wastewater treatment facilities, cleanup of a superfund facility, closed landfill repair activities, soil remediation activities, oil well and sump closures, vineyard development, and other developments authorized by various federal agencies or review of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit applications to State water quality agencies by developers, municipalities, mines, businesses, and others. Informal consultations regarding the California tiger salamander usually resulted in recommendations to employ erosion control measures, conduct certain activities by hand, and avoid small mammal burrows, relied on current State water quality standards for protection of water quality, and resulted in little to no modification of the proposed activities. In reviewing these past informal consultations and the activities involved in light of proposed critical habitat, we do not believe the outcomes would have been different in areas designated as critical habitat.
In summary, we have considered whether this proposed designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and we have concluded that it would not. Future consultations are not likely to affect a substantial number of small entities. We have no indication that the types of activities we review under section 7 of the Act will change significantly in the future. There would be no additional section 7 consultations resulting from this rule as all six of the proposed critical habitat units are currently occupied by California tiger salamanders, and the consultation requirement would be triggered by the presence of a listed species.
This rule would result in major project modifications only when proposed activities with a Federal nexus would destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. While this may occur, it is not expected to occur frequently enough to affect a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, we are certifying that the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. This determination will be revisited after the close of the comment period and revised, if necessary, in the final rule.
This discussion is based upon the information regarding potential economic impact that is available to us at this time. This assessment of economic effect may be modified prior to final rulemaking based upon review of the draft economic analysis prepared pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and E.O. 12866. This analysis is for the purposes of compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and does not reflect our position on the type of economic analysis required by
On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O. 13211) on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the California tiger salamander is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and it is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required. The designation of critical habitat affects only Federal agency actions. The rule will not increase or decrease the current restrictions on private property concerning take of the California tiger salamander. Due to current public knowledge of the species' protection, the prohibition against take of the species both within and outside of the designated areas, and the fact that critical habitat provides no incremental restrictions, we do not anticipate that property values will be affected by the proposed critical habitat designation. While real estate market values may temporarily decline following designation, due to the perception that critical habitat designation may impose additional regulatory burdens on land use, we expect any such impacts to be short term. Additionally, critical habitat
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not required. In keeping with DOI and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated development of, this proposed critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource agencies in California. The designation of critical habitat in areas currently occupied by the California tiger salamander imposes no additional restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, has little incremental impact on State and local governments and their activities. The designation may have some benefit to these governments in that the areas essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary to the survival of the species are specifically identified. While making this definition and identification does not alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur, it may assist these local governments in long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. This proposed rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the primary constituent elements within the designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the California tiger salamander.
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department of Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that there are no tribal lands essential for the conservation of the California tiger salamander. Therefore, designation of critical habitat for the California tiger salamander has not been designated on Tribal lands.
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see
The primary author of this package is the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office staff.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. In § 17.11(h), revise the entry for “Salamander, California tiger, Santa Barbara County DPS” under “AMPHIBIANS” to read as follows:
(h) * * *
3. In § 17.95(d), revise the entry for “
(d) Amphibians.
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Santa Barbara County, California, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California tiger salamander are the habitat components that provide:
(i) Standing bodies of fresh water, including natural and man-made (
(ii) Barrier-free uplands adjacent to breeding ponds that contain small mammal burrows, including but not limited to burrows created by the California ground squirrel (
(iii) Upland areas between breeding locations and areas with small mammal burrows that allow for dispersal among such sites.
(3) Critical habitat does not include existing features and structures, such as buildings, aqueducts, airports, roads, and other developed areas not containing one or more of the primary constituent elements.
(4) Data layers defining map units were created on a base of USGS 7.5′ quadrangles, and critical habitat units were then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.
(5)
(6) Unit 1: Western Santa Maria/Orcutt Unit, Santa Barbara County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Guadalupe, Santa Maria, Orcutt and Casmalia. Lands bounded by UTM Zone 10, NAD 1927 coordinates (E, N): 727900, 3864900; 728200, 3864800; 729400, 3864600; 729400, 3864100; 729600, 3864100; 729600, 3864000; 729900, 3864000; 729900, 3864300; 730100, 3864100; 730300, 3864100; 730400, 3864200; 730900, 3864200; 731000, 3864000; 731200, 3864000; 731300, 3864100; 731700, 3863800; 731700, 3863700; 733500, 3863700; 733600, 3863900; 733700, 3864100; 733700, 3864200; 734400, 3864200; 734400, 3862400; 733000, 3862400; 733000, 3862300; 732800, 3862300; 732700, 3862400; 731800, 3862400; 731800, 3862100; 732000, 3862100; 732000, 3861800; 731800, 3861800; 731800, 3861600; 731500, 3861500; 731200, 3861600; 731300, 3861800; 730700, 3862000; 730600, 3862000; 730500, 3861800; 730100, 3862000; 729800, 3862100; 728900, 3862500; 728800, 3862500; 728600, 3862300; 728500, 3862200; 728300, 3862100; 727500, 3862100; 727200, 3861800; 726900, 3861400; 726800, 3861700; 726700, 3861900; 726500, 3862100; 726400, 3862300; 726100, 3862400; 725900, 3862700; 725800, 3862900; 725900, 3863100; 726200, 3863300; 726400, 3863600; 726400, 3864000; 726500, 3864300; 726500, 3864700; 726600, 3864800; 726700, 3864900; 727900, 3864900.
(ii)
(7) Unit 2: Eastern Santa Maria Unit, Santa Barbara County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Guadalupe, Santa Maria, Twitchell Dam, Orcutt and Sisquoc. Lands bounded by UTM Zone 10, NAD 1927 coordinates (E, N): 737400, 3864500; 737500, 3864600; 737400, 3864700; 737400, 3864800; 737500, 3864800; 737800, 3865100; 739600, 3865100; 739600, 3864300; 742500, 3864300; 742900, 3864000; 742800, 3863700; 742900, 3863500; 743000, 3863200; 743100, 3863000; 743200, 3862900; 743300, 3862800; 743400, 3862600; 743600, 3862300; 743700, 3862200; 743700, 3861800; 743500, 3861700; 743400, 3861600; 743200, 3861500; 743100, 3861300; 743000, 3861100; 742800, 3861000; 742500, 3861100; 741200, 3861100; 741200, 3861500; 740900, 3861500; 740900, 3861900; 740700, 3862100; 740400, 3862500; 740300,3862700; 740300,3863100; 738600, 3863500; 738500, 3863700; 738000, 3864200; 737800, 3864200; 737700, 3864300; 737600, 3864400; 737500, 3864400; 737400, 3864500.
(ii)
(8) Unit 3: Western Los Alamos/Careaga Unit, Santa Barbara County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Orcutt and Sisquoc. Lands bounded by UTM Zone 10, NAD 1927 coordinates (E, N): 739900, 3853000; 740200, 3853300; 740200, 3853700; 740100, 3853800; 740200, 3853900; 740300, 3853900; 740300, 3854100; 740200, 3854300; 740100, 3854500; 740100, 3854600; 740000, 3854600; 740000, 3854700; 740100, 3854800; 740200, 3855000; 740300, 3855100; 740400, 3855000; 740500, 3855000; 740600, 3854900; 741000, 3854800; 741300, 3854700; 741700, 3854600; 741800, 3854200; 741900, 3853900; 742000, 3853800; 742100, 3853600; 742300, 3853400; 742400, 3853600; 742600, 3853600; 742700, 3853500; 742700, 3853600; 742800, 3853700; 742900, 3853600; 743000, 3853500; 743100, 3853600; 743100, 3853700; 743200, 3853700; 743300, 3853900; 743400, 3853700; 743600, 3853500; 743700, 3853300; 743900, 3853100; 744200, 3852900; 744700, 3852600; 745200, 3852300; 745500, 3852100; 745600, 3852000; 745600, 3851900; 745500, 3851700; 745500, 3851500; 745400, 3851300; 745300, 3851300; 745200, 3851200; 745100, 3851200; 745000, 3851300; 744800, 3851500; 744500, 3851500; 744400, 3851600; 744300, 3851600; 744200, 3851700; 744100, 3851700; 744000, 3851800; 743000, 3851800; 742700, 3852100; 742600, 3852200; 742600, 3852300; 742500, 3852300; 742400, 3852200; 742300, 3852100; 742000, 3852100; 741800, 3852200; 741700, 3852200; 741600, 3852300; 741500, 3852300; 741400, 3852400; 741200, 3852500; 741000, 3852800; 740900, 3852900; 740600, 3852900; 740200, 3852800; 740000, 3852700; 739900, 3852800; 739900, 3853000.
(ii)
(9) Unit 4: Eastern Los Alamos Unit, Santa Barbara County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Los Alamos and Zaca Creek. Lands bounded by UTM Zone 10, NAD 1927 coordinates (E, N): 750500, 3846400; 750200, 3846600; 750200, 3847200; 750600, 3847200; 751100, 3847100; 751900, 3847000; 752000, 3847000; 752400, 3846900; 752600, 3846800; 753900, 3846200; 754000, 3846200; 754000, 3845900; 754100, 3845300; 754200, 3845200; 754100, 3845100; 753900, 3845100; 753900, 3844900; 753800, 3845000; 753600, 3844800; 753500, 3845200; 753300, 3845200; 753300, 3845300; 753200, 3845400; 753100, 3845400; 753000, 3845500; 752900, 3845500; 753000, 3845400; 752900, 3845300; 752900, 3845200; 752800, 3845200; 752800, 3845300; 752600, 3845300; 752600, 3845400; 752500, 3845500; 752300, 3845500; 751700, 3845500; 751700, 3845200; 751300, 3845400; 751100, 3845600; 751000, 3845600; 750900, 3845500; 750800, 3845800; 750500, 3845900; 750500, 3846000; 750400, 3846000; 750400, 3846100; 750500, 3846100; 750500, 3846400.
(ii)
(10) Units 5 and 6: The Purisima Hills and Santa Rita Units, Santa Barbara County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Lompoc and Los Alamos. Lands bounded by UTM Zone 10, NAD 1927 coordinates (E, N): 740300, 3843800; 740400, 3844100; 740400, 3844200; 740500, 3844400; 740500, 3844600; 740600, 3845000; 740700, 3845000; 741200, 3845100; 741400, 3845100; 741500, 3845100; 741600, 3844900; 742100, 3844900; 742200, 3844900; 742400, 3845000; 742600, 3845200; 742700, 3845400; 742700, 3845500; 742600, 3845600; 742600, 3845700; 742700, 3845800; 742900, 3845800; 743000, 3845800; 743400, 3845900; 743500, 3846000; 743600, 3846000; 743700, 3845900; 743800, 3845900; 743800, 3845800; 743900, 3845700; 743900, 3845600; 743800, 3845400; 743800, 3845300; 743800, 3844800; 743900, 3844600; 744000, 3844500; 744100, 3844500; 744200, 3844700; 744300, 3844800; 744400, 3844800; 744500, 3844700; 744500, 3844400; 744400, 3844300; 744400, 3844100; 744300, 3844000; 744300, 3843900; 744400, 3843900; 744400, 3843800; 744300, 3843700; 744200, 3843700; 744100, 3843600; 743500, 3843600; 743400, 3843500; 743200, 3843400; 743000, 3843300; 742900, 3843200; 742800, 3843000; 742800, 3842900; 742900, 3842800; 742800, 3842700; 742700, 3842600; 742500, 3842400; 742500, 3842300; 742400, 3842200; 742400, 3842100; 742300, 3842000; 742200, 3842000; 742200, 3842100; 742100, 3842300; 742000, 3842400; 741900, 3842300; 741900, 3842200; 741800, 3842200; 741700, 3842100; 741600, 3842100; 741500, 3842200; 741200, 3842300; 741000, 3842300; 740900, 3842500; 740800, 3842600; 740700, 3842700; 740400, 3843000; 740300, 3843200; 740300, 3843800.
(ii) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Los Alamos. Lands bounded by UTM Zone 10, NAD 1927 coordinates (E, N): 745900, 3837900; 746000, 3837800; 746100, 3837800; 746300, 3838000; 746500, 3837900; 746700, 3838000; 746700, 3838100; 746800, 3838200; 746900, 3838200; 747000, 3838300; 747200, 3838400; 747300, 3838300; 747200, 3837900; 747100, 3837500; 747000, 3837500; 746900, 3837300; 746900, 3837100; 747000, 3836900; 747400, 3836500; 747700, 3836300; 747900, 3836200; 747700, 3836000; 747600, 3836000; 747300, 3835700; 747200, 3835700; 746800, 3835700; 746600, 3835900; 746300, 3836100; 746100, 3836100; 745800, 3836700; 745800, 3837400; 745900, 3837900.
(iii)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), withdraw the proposed rule, published in the
The supporting record for this rule is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, ID 83709.
Jeff Foss, Field Supervisor, Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office (
The primary seed dispersal mechanism for
Like many short-lived plants growing in arid environments, the above-ground number of
Meyer
Research on other species (as well as theoretical models) has shown that species exhibiting wide population fluctuations, such as
Associated native species in the sagebrush-steppe habitat include
Recent studies in 2002 and 2003 by the IDARNG and NRCS conducted at the Orchard Training Area in southwestern Idaho, have shown that slickspots are distinguishable from the surrounding soils by higher percent clay content below the first 0.8 in (2 cm) of soil. For example, at one site the percent of clay changed from 5.0 percent at 0 to 0.8 in (0 to 2 cm) (the first horizon) to 27.8 percent at 0.8 to 5.5 in (2 to 14 cm) (second horizon) (National Soil Survey Laboratory,
Rangewide,
An “occurrence” or “element occurrence” as defined by the ICDC represents a specific geographical location containing a species (or some other “element”) of conservation concern. It is the standard database record used throughout the Natural Heritage Program/Conservation Data Center network (ICDC 2002), of which ICDC is part (Mancuso and Moseley 1998). Occurrences of
Occurrence boundaries are based on estimates delineating the extent of occupied
The largest occurrence is located on the Air Force's Juniper Butte Training Range. In 1998, the Air Force acquired BLM land to establish the Juniper Butte ETR, under the Juniper Butte Range Withdrawal Act (PL 105–261), which provided for the withdrawal and management of this area by the Air Force for military activities (Air Force 2000). Juniper Butte ETR is approximately 12,000 ac (4,856 ha) in size, and the landscape is a mosaic of sagebrush-steppe and nonnative plant communities, some of which has been impacted by past wildfire and subsequent conversion from the native sagebrush-perennial grassland vegetation to nonnative perennial or annual grasslands (Air Force 2000). Slickspot habitat and
The ICDC database contains a total of 93
Forty-nine of the 75 extant occurrences (65 percent) are located completely on Federal land managed by the BLM or Air Force, and 6 occur completely on private land (8 percent). Three occurrences (4 percent) are located completely on either county or city lands. The 17 remaining occurrences (23 percent) encompass areas of multiple land ownership, representing a mixture of Federal, State, and/or private lands.
Sixty of the 75 extant occurrences of
While we recognize the inherent limitations of this occurrence quality ranking methodology as not being quantitative and difficult to replicate, we believe it to represent the best available tool in which to examine and rank
“A”-ranked occurrences, as defined by ICDC, “consist of those with large population numbers occurring in high-quality sagebrush-steppe communities. The occurrences also tend to be large in area, consisting of many slickspots spread over a contiguous area. ‘A’-ranked populations generally consist of populations with greater than 1,000 above-ground individuals in sagebrush stands consisting mostly of native perennials; these sites generally have not burned and do not support exotic annuals” (Moseley 1994). Of the 60 extant ranked occurrences, 7 (12 percent) are considered “high-quality” or “A”-ranked. The 7 “A”-ranked occurrences are estimated to encompass approximately 6,596 ac (2,669 ha), which is 33 percent of the total estimated acreage of all ranked occurrences. Approximately 4,430 ac (1,793 ha), or 67 percent, of this “A”-ranked area is located within 2 occurrences on the IDARNG's Orchard Training Area (OTA) (ICDC 2003).
“B”-ranked occurrences, as defined by ICDC, range from “about 400 to 2,000 individuals,” however, the “average” occurrence of this rank consists of several hundred plants in good-to high-quality sites. “B”-ranked occurrences can include sites containing 400 to 600 individual plants (low end of the range) occurring in high-quality habitat and/or thousands of individuals (high end of the range) that occur in fair-to low-quality sites (burned-over cheatgrass stands or crested wheatgrass seedings) (Moseley 1994). Nine (15 percent) of the 60 ranked extant occurrences are “B”-ranked. The 9 “B”-ranked occurrences total approximately 10,683 ac (4,323 ha), or 53 percent of the total area of all ranked occurrences. Approximately 8,970 ac (3,630 ha) of this 10,683 ac area is located within one large occurrence on the Air Force's Juniper Butte Training Range. This single large occurrence was assigned a “B”-ranking (the proposed rule erroneously identified this as a “C”-ranking) because much of the habitat within this occurrence has been degraded by wildfires and subsequent seedings of crested and intermediate wheatgrass prior to the land being withdrawn for Air Force management (Air Force 2002b; ICDC 2003). The average size of the “B”-ranked occurrences is approximately 1,187 ac (480 ha).
“C”-ranked occurrences, as defined by ICDC, “consist of as few as 25 to greater than 1,000 individuals.” The “average” “C”-ranked occurrence consists of 100 to 200 individuals in fair-to low-quality habitat. The occurrences with smaller numbers of above-ground plants occur in large tracts of high-quality habitat, while occurrences at the high end of the range of the numbers of above-ground plants are in severely disturbed habitats or those that are adjacent to recent developments and are not expected to remain viable (Moseley 1994). Of the 60 extant ranked occurrences, 21 (35 percent) are “C”-ranked. The 21 “C”-ranked occurrences total approximately 731 ac (296 ha), or 3 percent of the total area of all ranked occurrences. The average size of the 21 “C”-ranked occurrences is approximately 35 ac (14 ha) (ICDC 2003).
“D”-ranked occurrences, as defined by ICDC, “consist of generally less than 50 individuals (often less than 25) occurring as isolated populations in degraded habitats,” and are not expected to remain viable (Moseley 1994). Eighteen (30 percent) of the 60 extant ranked occurrences are “D”-ranked. The 18 “D”-ranked occurrences total approximately 1,890 ac (765 ha), or 9 percent of the acreage of all ranked occurrences, with an average size of approximately 105 ac (43 ha). The average size of the “D”-ranked occurrences is biased by a single 1,495-ac (605-ha) occurrence. The average size of the “D”-ranked occurrences is reduced to approximately 23 ac (9 ha) if this single 1,495-ac (605-ha) occurrence is excluded from the calculation.
Five of the 60 extant ranked occurrences have been categorized by ICDC as intermediate between the 4 defined ranks. Four (7 percent) are identified as “B/C”-ranked, and total approximately 208 ac (84 ha), or 1 percent of the area of all ranked occurrences. The 4 “B/C”-ranked occurrences have an average size of approximately 52 ac (21 ha). The remaining ranked occurrence is identified as “C/D”-ranked. The single “C/D”-ranked occurrence totals approximately 23 ac (9 ha), and constitutes 1 percent of the area of all ranked occurrences (ICDC 2003). Given the definition of rankings by ICDC, approximately 27 percent of all ranked occurrences or approximately 86 percent of the estimated area of all ranked occurrences are ranked as A or B, populations considered to have a high to moderate probability of long-term survival.
Over the period from 1994 through the 2002 field season, 13 of the extant
During the same period, 8 (10 percent of) documented
Some disagreement as to the accuracy of some
To provide a consistent monitoring methodology for use by management agencies, the ICDC in 1997 initiated a collaborative effort that included participation by the IDARNG, BLM, Air Force, and the Service. The result of this effort was development of a habitat integrity index (HII) for use in assessing and monitoring occupied
The HII data represents the best available site-specific data for the occurrences of
The abundance of above-ground plants may fluctuate significantly from year to year due to site-specific microclimate conditions, especially precipitation. HII was developed to assess the overall habitat condition that includes those attributes associated with the slickspot microsite and the sagebrush-steppe habitat, and to assess the prospects that an occurrence will persist over time, including factors affecting the viability and defensibility (degree of protection from human-caused impacts) of the occurrence (Mancuso 2001). This HII monitoring protocol consists of four components: (1) Sampling along a transect to acquire specific slickspot microsite and adjacent habitat information; (2) vegetation plot sampling; (3) photo points; and (4) an Occurrence Viability scorecard.
Monitoring of fixed transects using HII has taken place annually since 1998. A core set of 38 transects were monitored annually over the period 1998–2001 with some years including monitoring of transects beyond the core set of 38. HII results illustrate how the number of
In summary, ICDC HII monitoring results from 1998 through 2001 revealed there has not been a dramatic, rapid, widespread decline in the condition of slickspot peppergrass habitat (Mancuso 2002). It also shows habitat improvement is limited to a few sites. The pattern the past four years has been a slow, but steady decline, affecting a few occurrences each year. For example, after the 2001 monitoring season conditions did not seem too much different or worse than the 2000 monitoring season (Mancuso 2002). HII monitoring results for the 2002 field season revealed no transects with an overall improving trend, two transects showed decline, and the remaining 15 transects were either stable or showed no clear upward or downward trend (Mancuso 2003).
Federal Government actions for the plant began in 1990 when this species (as
On April 9, 2001, we received a petition dated April 4, 2001, from the Committee for Idaho's High Desert, the Western Watersheds Project, the Wilderness Society, and the Idaho Conservation League (Petitioners) requesting emergency listing of
On November 6, 2001, the Petitioners filed a complaint for our failure to emergency list
On July 15, 2002, we published a proposed rule to list
After review of public comments and additional information received during the second comment period, we determined there was substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relevant to the proposed listing rule, making it necessary to solicit and evaluate additional data to address this disagreement. On July 18, 2003, we published a finding (68 FR 42666) announcing a 6-month extension of the deadline for a final listing determination for
In addition to soliciting data and conducting further analysis to address the disagreement in the sufficiency and accuracy of the available data, we worked with the Air Force and IDARNG to update their Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans (INRMPs) and to further address the conservation needs of
On October 30, 2003, we published a notice announcing the availability of, and soliciting review and comment on the draft CCA and our document, “Best Available Information on
Following the publication of the proposed rule on July 15, 2002 (67 FR 46441), we contacted and provided copies of the proposal to Federal, State, and local agencies, county governments, elected officials, scientific organizations, and other interested parties and asked that they comment. We requested comments and any additional data and information that might assist us in making a final decision on our proposal to list
Another public comment period was opened for 30 days from July 18, 2003, to August 18, 2003, during the 6-month extension of the deadline for our final determination (68 FR 42666). Due to substantial disagreement among interested parties over the sufficiency or accuracy of our available data on
We prepared a summary document entitled, “Primary Issues of Disagreement Regarding the Status and Threats to
In accordance with our July 1, 1994, Interagency Cooperative Policy on Peer Review (59 FR 34270), we requested the expert opinions of 12 independent specialists regarding pertinent scientific or commercial data and assumptions relating to supportive biological and ecological information in the proposed rule. The purpose of such a review is to ensure that the listing decision is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses, including input of appropriate experts and specialists.
The 12 reviewers we requested to review the proposed rule were selected on the basis of their expertise on
Some of the comments received during the public comment periods suggested that the proposed rule inappropriately extrapolated beyond the limited data available and thus drew unsupported, possibly erroneous conclusions about the effects of various environmental factors. Additionally, the Service accepted scientific review comments from the Air Force. The Air Force comments were a compilation of reviews conducted by five Ph.D. scientists and one research agronomist. The Air Force comments raised substantial concerns about the certainty of the information we had relied upon to propose the species as endangered. In addition, the Department of Defense filed an Information Quality Act petition challenging the Service's use and interpretation of available information used in the proposed rule. Information focusing specifically on
At issue were the likelihood of
The experts participated only in a biological assessment of extinction risk. Following the biological panel, the Service held a session, attended exclusively by Service employees, to assess whether
During the risk assessment we asked each expert to analyze risk to
Finally, panelists discussed ongoing and hypothetical research programs that could resolve some of the uncertainty about what the future holds for
In one exercise the panelists evaluated the various threat factors. Non-native annual grasses and the related effects of fire were, by far, the most important extinction factors. Other relatively high-ranking threats were livestock, drill-seeding and the forage species planted in fire rehabilitation, and vehicles. Other factors such as the herbicides used in fire rehabilitation, climate variables, and herbivory were less important. While there has been no previous attempt to rank these factors, the rankings more or less conform to the levels of emphasis placed on these factors in the proposed rule.
The expert's estimates of risk also conform to the Service's conclusion that, over the next few decades, the likelihood of extinction is more probable for
We received 32 comments from Federal, State, and county agencies and government offices, industry and environmental organizations, researchers, and private citizens. These comments are summarized with the other public comments in the comments section. We assembled these comments and other new information we had received in a document entitled “Best Available Information on
This final determination reflects the comments and information we received during the three public comment periods on the proposed listing rule, and the one comment period on the “Best Available Information on
Our evaluation of the significance of these numerous ongoing threats across the range of
We have received new information since the proposed rule specific to
Increased survey efforts by ICDC and BLM since Moseley produced his 1994 status review have resulted in an increase in the number of known
Surveys for species such as
We agree that further research and continued surveys and monitoring will provide additional information to benefit management of this species. The CCA and the two INRMPs provide for this important future work to be accomplished. Although there is some disagreement as to the accuracy of some
This species is already afforded some level of protection due to the fact that the majority of known
We began working with IDARNG and BLM in 1996 and 1997 to develop a conservation strategy for
We believe the development of conservation agreements for
Fourteen (19 percent) of the known
Herbicides such as Oust are one of a number of tools available for the control of nonnative invasive plants. Scholten (2000) reports that, while Oust did not impact germination of seeds within the seed bank in the year following application, it reduced input into the seed bank by reducing
Some occupied slickspots have been permanently impacted following drill-seedings, but it is often not clear whether fire, seeding, or the combination of the two disturbances caused the disappearance of the species or the slickspot.
Limited data are currently available regarding threshold management levels from livestock management activities for
On the OTA, IDARNG has implemented a variety of actions to meet the conservation needs of
As we believe that the majority of potential military impacts to
Also, we are unaware of any specific studies documenting foraging on
Regarding drought, there was no specific information pertaining to potential drought effects to
On October 30, 2003, we published a notice of document availability for review and public comment, which opened a 14-day public comment period through November 14, 2003 (68 FR 61821). We solicited public comment on our document “Best Available Information on
Suggestions of possible measures to eliminate harmful insects, as well as measures to increase potential pollinators for
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal list of endangered and threatened species. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The following analysis examines the listing factors, their application to
A Candidate Conservation Agreement was completed in December 2003, by the BLM, the State of Idaho, IDARNG, and holders of BLM livestock permits. In conjunction with the CCA, several private landowners entered into Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) with the State of Idaho committing to conservation efforts on approximately 17,000 acres of private land. The IDARNG has operated the Orchard Training Range (OTA) under their INRMP for several years and has committed under the conservation agreement to additional conservation actions. The Air Force has recently updated their INRMP to strengthen conservation measures for the species. These conservation plans have
A.
This section of the rule presents information for each of the factors affecting
Wildfire effects on
Historically, fires in sagebrush-steppe communities occurred infrequently, tended to burn small areas, and required hotter, drier conditions to burn (Whisenant 1990; Billings 1990). Although wildfire may have been an important factor in sagebrush-steppe habitat (Miller
Frequent fires can also promote soil erosion (Bunting
Ground disturbance associated with fire control, such as establishment of fire lines (areas with vegetation removed to bare soil to break fuel continuity), establishment of fire camps and staging areas, and use of fire suppression vehicles can also impact existing
Good fire management practices can reduce the threat of fire and result in improved conservation status for the
In the proposed rule, we stated that post-fire range restoration efforts can also threaten
The benefits of post-fire revegetation, and subsequent recovery of soil surfaces conducive to germination and establishment of perennial grass and shrub communities, may outweigh the initial short-term disturbance associated with drill seeding (Hilty
Conservation measure 08 of the CCA commits BLM to use seeding techniques that minimize soil disturbance such as no-till drills and rangeland drills equipped with depth bands when rehabilitation and restoration projects have the potential to impact occupied and suitable habitat. Rehabilitation and restoration standard operating procedures for
Since 1987, the Army National Guard has had policies in place for fire rehabilitation activities that avoid the use of drill seeding and require the use of native plant species for reseeding fire-impacted areas on the OTA (IDARNG 2003). Both the BLM and Air Force have “slickspot-friendly” rehabilitation measures in place, for example, forage kochia are not to be used for revegetation in
Activities associated with seeding burned areas with highly competitive nonnative perennial plants, including crested wheatgrass, have resulted in the destruction of at least two
Although the use of native plant species for fire rehabilitation is preferable, there have been problems with the availability and high cost of native seed (Jirik 1999; Brooks and Pyke 2001). One alternative may be to focus revegetation programs on establishing functional groups of nonnative plant species that maintain ecosystem processes (Jones 1999; Masters and Sheley 2001).
Intermediate wheatgrass (
The past conversion of vast areas of the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem to annual grasslands has reduced suitable remaining habitat for, and invaded some,
The BLM has agreed in the future to emphasize the use of native plants and avoid the use of invasive nonnative species (CCA
The Air Force and IDARNG have also developed similar measures (Air Force 2004; IDARNG 2003). Page 6–30 of the Air Force INRMP required use of only non-invasive plan materials and use of native plants to the maximum extent practicable. The IDARNG has implemented a similar policy for the past several years.
Another potential threat to
Existing conservation measures designed to reduce the adverse effects of wildfire, including those implemented through the Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA), Air Force INRMP and IDARNG INRMP, apply to approximately 97 percent of
The INRMPs and CCA implement minimum impact suppression tactics to mitigate the impacts of suppression. Additionally, the BLM and Air Force will distribute maps to fire crews and provide training so they are aware of element occurrences to avoid ground disturbance impacts to
An additional 17,000 acres (6,880 ha) of private land are covered in MOUs with the State of Idaho, where landowners will implement actions to avoid ground disturbance impacts in the vicinity of slickspots and coordinate fire suppression activities with the BLM to avoid ground disturbance impacts to
As evidenced by the healthy condition of the occurrences on the Orchard Training Area (two A-ranked occurrences), it has been demonstrated that diligent efforts to suppress fire and the use of native species with minimal ground-disturbing fire rehabilitation activities can be effective in reducing the wildfire threat. In addition, the IDARNG already does not drill seed in occupied
We believe that the ongoing and recently implemented conservation measures, while not preventing future wildfire, will reduce both short-term and long-term effects of wildfire in the foreseeable future within the range of the species. Given the inherent difficulties for wildfire prevention, the conservation measures may not be completely effective in preventing the adverse effects of a landscape-level wildfire event. In the event of landscape-level wildfire affecting occurrences, an effective adaptive management strategy to account for changed circumstances as identified in the CCA and INRMPs will be critical to ensure the conservation of
The CCA on page 117 describes the role of the Slickspot Peppergrass Conservation Team (SPCT) in implementing adaptive management. In addition to the CCA cooperators, the Service is a member of the SPCT. One important component of the adaptive management process is how the SPCT will address the significance of changed conditions in response to developing appropriate adaptive management. Figure 4 (CCA 2003; page 118) outlines the implementation framework and feedback loop. The SPCT will need to address the significance of the changed conditions promptly after the changed condition is discovered (CCA 2003; page 119). The CCA describes in detail the process of adaptive management and assigns the responsibility to the SPCT.
The threat of livestock grazing encompasses the effects of trampling, especially during wet periods, and the continued spread of nonnative species that exacerbates wildfire risk. Currently, livestock grazing potentially affects up to 96 percent of the extant occurrences of
The direct effects of livestock grazing on
Grazing currently occurs at 56 of the 75 known
Beginning in 2000, the BLM initiated conservation efforts to mitigate livestock grazing impacts to
In the CCA, BLM has agreed to change the terms and conditions of all grazing permits to reflect and include the conservation measures for each management unit. Each BLM management unit has unit-specific conservation measures for the multiple element occurrences located within it. The conservation measures for the management unit are designed to eliminate, reduce or mitigate the impacts of site specific activities and threats and to maintain or restore the sagebrush-steppe habitat.
Additionally, the BLM has changed the season of grazing use from spring to fall on some allotments to protect flowering annuals from effects of grazing, although this does not protect the biennial form of
The Air Force established three fenced areas (80 ac (32 ha), 12 ac (4.9), and 20 ac (8.1 ha)) in 2002 with the purposes of promoting
Research to examine the relationship between livestock grazing and
We acknowledge that the short- and long-term effects of livestock grazing on
The conservation documents (CCA, USAF–INRMP, IDARNG–INRMP) implement numerous measures to avoid, mitigate, and monitor effects of grazing on the species. Livestock grazing conservation measures implemented in the CCA and the Air Force INRMP apply to all federally managed lands within the occupied range of
Conservation measures implemented by the CCA include minimum distances for placement of salt and water troughs away from occurrences of the species. The CCA also implements measures to reduce trampling during wet periods, including trailing restrictions and restrictions to prevent penetrating trampling of slickspots. More restrictive conservation measures have been implemented in the CCA for priority occurrences, such as no early spring grazing, fencing to exclude livestock, and delaying turnout when soils are saturated.
Efforts described in many of the CCA conservation measures (CCA, in litt 2003) reduce the extent and depth of trampling slickspots by livestock. Though little data is available regarding this potential impact, we consider breaking of the slickspot restrictive layer as having the most potential for damaging the integrity of the slickspots. One source of information regarding trampling of slickspots is from studies at the IDARNG's OTA. A significant reduction in above-ground
In addition to the conservation measures implemented by CCA cooperators, several private landowners representing 17,000 ac (6,880 ha) of private land have entered into MOUs with the State of Idaho to conserve the species. These private landowners have agreed to implement measures from the CCA pertaining to minimum distances for placement of salt blocks away from slickspots, minimum distances for water trough placement away from slickspots, and avoiding trailing of livestock when soils are saturated, and restricting their vehicle travel to existing roads and tracks. At least one landowner will include 160 acres (64.7 ha) of private land into an enclosure to protect an occurrence from grazing. The duration of these agreements is for 2 years with the possibility of extending this time. Due to the limited area private land constitutes of the
Under the revised INRMP, the Air Force will continue to use livestock grazing throughout the majority of the Juniper Butte ETR to reduce the amount of standing grass biomass to in turn reduce wildfire risk (Air Force 2000, 2002b, 2004). The grazing component plan for the INRMP states that livestock grazing will occur annually for up to 60 days and coincides with the shutdown of the range for clean-up and target maintenance. The shutdown period lasts a maximum of 60 days within a 90-day period, from April 1 through June 30. Since grazing is compressed into this 60-day time period, intensive livestock management on Juniper Butte ETR by the Air Force has the potential to impact
The Air Force's INRMP focuses on avoiding grazing when slickspots are wet in order to avoid this potential for trampling slickspot habitats. Project 3 of the grazing component plan in the Air Force's INRMP provides guidance for annual monitoring of slickspot soil moisture to determine livestock turnout dates for Juniper Butte ETR. Monitoring of pastures and evaluation of 50 slickspots within each occupied area will be evaluated to determine the level of wetness. A soil penetrometer is used to determine the load rate the slickspot can support before imprintation occurs. The turnout date for livestock will be established when the slickspot surface in 75 percent of slickspots examined is strong enough to support the age and weight class of the cattle to be turned out on the range.
We believe that the conservation measures outlined in the conservation documents (CCA, USAF–INRMP, IDARNG–INRMP) reduce the risk of direct impacts of livestock grazing in the short-term and in the foreseeable future. We also believe that efforts to establish exclosures to protect some L. papilliferum areas from grazing impacts represent further reduction in the threat. Effects associated with increased organic matter from livestock feces and pollinator impacts from grazing are not addressed in the conservation
Military training activities may result in soil disturbance as a result of vehicle maneuvers, increased fire hazards, and continued invasions of nonnative plants. Currently military training affects less than 2 percent of the known
In 2002, the Air Force conducted a complete census of all slickspots and
In the proposed rule, we noted that the Air Force has implemented conservation measures to reduce the potential threat to
Although not likely to frequently occur, sparks generated from inert ordnance hitting the ground or heat from the use of vehicles and other mechanized equipment may also provide an ignition source for wildfire, which could impact
The dropping of inert bombs within the 300–ac (121-ha) primary ordnance impact zone at Juniper Butte ETR during military training exercises could also impact
Currently the threat of military training activities does not represent a principal factor in the viability of the species and the sagebrush ecosystem in the foreseeable future. Both the IDARNG and Air Force are implementing various conservation measures to avoid or reduce adverse effects of military training on the species and its habitat. We believe that these measures will continue to mitigate adverse effects in the foreseeable future associated with military training and consider this threat to be localized and minimal, with little significance across the range of the species.
Residential and agricultural development threatens slickspot habitat through habitat conversion, increased nonnative plant invasions, increased wildfire. Currently the threat affects less than 5 percent of the known occupied
In the proposed rule, we noted the long-term viability of some
Development of adjacent private land may also threaten at least four
Residential and agricultural development potentially affects only 3 percent of the known occupied
Gravel and cinder mining may encourage increased nonnative plant invasions due to increased access of Off-Highway Vehicles and mining equipment. Currently gravel or cinder mining operations affect approximately 3 percent of the known
The CCA identifies conservation actions for element occurrences 21 and 51 to address restoration of slickspot habitat if degradation is found to be associated with authorized uses, including the rehabilitation associated with cinder and gravel mining operation (CCA,
The threat of recreational activities encompasses nonnative plant invasions, increased wildfires, and direct soil disturbance. Recreational activities occur across most of the range of
Operation of motorized vehicles off established roads and trails has been identified as a potential threat to
The conservation measures in the CCA (
B.
C.
Herbivory by rodents and beetles has been observed on
There is insufficient information to indicate that disease or predation represents a threat to
D.
The Air Force has recently updated Integrated Resource Management Plans that contain specific conservation measures for
Conservation measures implemented through the CCA and INRMP, together with the measures being implemented by the IDARNG, which currently manages to conserve the species, apply to approximately 97 percent of the
E.
The proposed rule stated that less than 5,550 ac (2,246 ha) of high quality (with “A''-ranked occurrences) potential habitat existed for this species which may not be adequate to ensure long term persistence of
Approximately 67 percent of all “A''-ranked occurrences are located within two occurrences on the Orchard Training Area, where management is ongoing to conserve the species. Further, the amended Air Force INRMP addresses approximately 3630 ha (8970 ac) on the Juniper Butte Range. This occurrence is ranked as a B quality habitat. The proposed rule erroneously identified this area as having a C ranking (CCA,
There is a general lack of information about the effects of habitat fragmentation, on
There are numerous formalized conservation efforts, within 5 different formalized plans, designed to reduce threats and promote the long-term viability of
The IDARNG has operated the OTA under its INRMP for several years and also committed to conservation measures as outlined in the CCA. As IDARNG is party to the CCA, IDARNG's responsibilities in implementation of the CCA are considered in this analysis of certainty of implementation and effectiveness. In addition, the IDARNG is in the process of updating its existing INRMP, to strengthen the conservation measures for the species. The conservation efforts under the existing INRMP are considered in the following analysis of the certainty of implementation or effectiveness as they have already been implemented and shown to be effective. However, the update to the INRMP has not yet been formalized. Therefore, those updates will not be considered as contributing to the improved status of the species.
The Air Force has managed the Juniper Butte Training Range under the Mountain Home Air Force Base INRMP since establishment of the range in 2000. The Air Force recently completed the update to its INRMP to strengthen the conservation efforts for the species. The revised INRMP, in Appendix A, contains component plans including a plan for vegetation and grazing. The vegetation component plan is new in this revised INRMP and describes additional details about long-term monitoring of vegetation, rehabilitation after fire, fuel build-up prevention methodology, noxious weed identification and control, and
Many of the provisions in both the Air Force and IDARNG INRMPs are continuations or upgrades to existing conservation programs. Therefore a funding, regulatory, and implementation framework already exists for implementation of measures on lands covered by INRMPs. Both the Air Force and IARNG have demonstrated commitment to conserving the species as they have been implementing their INRMPs since 2000 and 1987, respectively. The Air Force manages approximately 44 percent of the known species occurrence acreage and the IDARNG manages approximately 19 percent of the known species range.
Considering the formalized conservation efforts as outlined in the CCA and the Air Force INRMP, we used the following criteria from PECE to direct our determination of the certainty that the conservation efforts will be implemented. As there are hundreds of conservation efforts described in these formalized plans, the following is a summary of information contained within the plans.
The Air Force INRMP has been implemented since 2000 has a demonstrated successful implementation of conservation measures. Chapter 6 of the INRMP identifies the parties necessary to implement each of the conservation measures and a January 9, 2004, memorandum to the Service states that “compliance with conservation measures in the INRMP are mandatory for all Air Force and contractor personnel, including lessees (Air Force 2004 in. litt.).” The memorandum also states “Air Combat Command has funded conservation measures for fiscal year 2004 and has validated our conservation budget requirements for fiscal years 2005–2011.” Of the 80 conservation efforts specific to
Under their INRMP, the IDARNG has been successfully implementing actions benefiting
Likewise, the INRMP for the Air Force specify various legal authorities to implement their plans, including the following. The Sikes Act provides for cooperation by the Departments of Interior and Defense with State agencies in planning, development and maintenance of fish and wildlife resources on military reservations throughout the United States. Section 9 of the Sikes Act Improvement Amendments states that the INRMP shall reflect the “mutual agreement” of the Service and State fish and wildlife agency.
In addition the legal authorities described above, implementing regulations and policies further describe State and Federal authorities for implementing the conservation efforts described in the CCA (chapters 1 and 9) and Air Force INRMP (Chapter 1).
The rangewide conservation measures provide the most conservation coverage of the conservation measures in the CCA. Only one of the rangewide conservation measures, establish firebreaks, requires NEPA compliance before implementation. The remainder of the conservation measures within the CCA that require NEPA compliance are for changes to allotment plans or grazing management. These changes will be reviewed under NEPA. However, grazing related measures such as conservation measure 5.14, no trailing cattle through element occurrences within the management area when soils are saturated, are implemented within the confines of existing grazing permits and does not require NEPA compliance. The vast majority of the conservation measures in the Air Force INRMP are on-going actions that have been either previously reviewed under NEPA or do not require NEPA compliance or related environmental review.
The expected benefits of participating in CCA implementation are described in chapter 11 of the CCA. The BLM has the authority via grazing permits to assure compliance with the associated conservation measures detailed in the CCA, regardless of participation by the permittee in the CCA. In addition, the private entities participate in implementation of the CCA through other actions such as, report survey information to CDC (see chapter 20 of the CCA,
Implementation of the Air Force INRMP does not require voluntary participation. A memorandum from the Air Force to the Service, dated January 9, 2004, states that compliance with the conservation efforts in their INRMP is mandatory.
As evidenced by actions underway and expected by the parties to the CCA and Air Force INRMP, we have received sufficient assurance that the long term viability of
Considering the formalized conservation efforts as outlined in the CCA and the Air Force INRMP, we used the following criteria from PECE to direct our determination of the certainty that the conservation efforts will be effective. Our analysis of the effectiveness of the conservation efforts is reflected above in the “Summary of Factors Affecting the Species.” As there are hundreds of conservation efforts described in these formalized plans, the following is a summary of information contained within the plans.
We have sufficient assurance that the conservation efforts have reduced threats over most of the range of the species. We believe that the conservation efforts will reduce the risk of fires in the foreseeable future within the range of the species. It will be important to implement the adaptive management strategy to ensure the conservation of
The Air Force INRMP, page A–10, describes Project 5, “Slickspot Peppergrass Monitoring of Permanent Plots.” The purpose of monitoring permanent plots is to provide data for adaptive management of the species. Five permanent
We have sufficient assurances that the conservation efforts have reduced threats over most of the range of the species. We believe that the conservation efforts will reduce the risk of fires in the foreseeable future within the range of the species. It will be important to implement the adaptive management strategy to ensure the conservation of
Based on a through additional analysis of the best available scientific and commercial information available on
Conservation measures implemented through the CCA and existing INRMPs apply to approximately 97 percent of the
Furthermore, since the proposed rule to list
This withdrawal of the proposed rule to list
A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others, is available upon request from our Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office (
The primary author of this final determination is U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office (
The authority for this action is section 4(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Agency for International Development.
Notice.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid (ACVFA).
This meeting will feature discussion on the changing face of U.S. foreign assistance delivery. Participants will have an opportunity to ask questions of the speakers and participate in the discussion.
The meeting is free and open to the public. Persons wishing to attend the meeting can visit
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. II), we are giving notice of a meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Foreign Animal and Poultry Diseases.
The meeting will be held on February 4, 2004, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held in the Conference Center at the USDA Center at Riverside, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD.
Written statements on the meeting topic may be sent to Dr. Joseph Annelli, Director Outreach/Liaison, Emergency Management, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 41, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231.
Dr. Joseph Annelli, Director Outreach/Liaison, Emergency Management, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 41, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734–8073.
The Secretary's Advisory Committee on Foreign Animal and Poultry Diseases (the Committee) advises the Secretary of Agriculture on actions necessary to prevent the introduction of foreign diseases of livestock and poultry into the United States. In addition, the Committee advises the Secretary on contingency planning and on maintaining a state of preparedness to deal with these diseases, if introduced.
A subcommittee has been established to address issues related to the detection of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the United States. At this meeting, the subcommittee will make its report to the Committee, and the Committee will discuss the report and consider what recommendations to make to the Secretary. The meeting will be open to the public, and any member of the public may file a written statement. However, due to the time constraints, only Committee members will be allowed to participate in the Committee's discussions.
You may file written statements on meeting topics with the Committee before or after the meeting. You may also file written statements at the time of the meeting. Please refer to Docket No. 04–006–1 when submitting your statements.
General Services Administration regulations in 41 CFR part 102–3, § 102–3.150, provide that notice of Federal advisory committee meetings must be published in the
Please note that a fee of $2.25 is required to enter the parking lot at the USDA Center. The machine accepts $1 bills and quarters.
Upon entering the building, visitors should inform security personnel that they are attending the Advisory Committee Meeting on Foreign Animal and Poultry Diseases. Identification is required. Visitor badges must be worn at all times while inside the building.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of initiation of antidumping and countervailing duty administrative reviews and request for revocation in part.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with December anniversary dates. In accordance with our regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews. The Department
January 22, 2004.
Holly A. Kuga, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–4737.
The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2002), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with December anniversary dates. The Department also received a timely request to revoke in part the antidumping duty order for Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India.
In accordance with section 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than December 31, 2004.
During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under section 351.211 or a determination under section 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of extension of time limit for final results of antidumping duty administrative review.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is extending the time limit for the final results of the review of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (“SSSS”) from Taiwan. This review covers the period July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002.
January 22, 2004.
Laurel LaCivita, Enforcement Group III—Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–4243.
On August 27, 2002, the Department published a notice of initiation of a review of SSSS from Taiwan covering the period July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002.
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act states that if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time specified, the administering authority may extend the 120-day period, following the date of publication of the preliminary results, to issue its final results by an additional 60 days. Completion of the final results within the 120-day period is not practicable for the following reasons: (1) This review requires the Department to analyze YUSCO's corporate affiliations and relationships; (2) This review involves certain complex issues which were raised by petitioners after the verification and after the preliminary results of review; and (3) The review involves a large number of transactions and complex adjustments.
Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for issuing the final results of review by 17 days until February 2, 2004.
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Denial of the request alleging that certain printed, 100 percent rayon, herringbone fabrics, for use in apparel articles, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the CBTPA.
On November 13, 2003 the Chairman of CITA received a petition from Alarmex Holdings Group, Inc. that certain printed, 100 percent rayon, herringbone fabric, of 220 g/m2 fabric weight, of 20's singles spun rayon yarn, of 100 X 64 construction, classified in subheading 5516.14.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), for use in apparel articles, cannot be supplied by
Janet Heinzen, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-3400.
Section 213(b)(2)(A)(v)(II) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, as added by Section 211(a) of the CBTPA; Section 6 of Executive Order No. 13191 of January 17, 2001.
The CBTPA provides for quota- and duty-free treatment for qualifying textile and apparel products. Such treatment is generally limited to products manufactured from yarns and fabrics formed in the United States or a beneficiary country. The CBTPA also provides for quota- and duty-free treatment for apparel articles that are both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more CBTPA beneficiary countries from fabric or yarn that is not formed in the United States, if it has been determined that such fabric or yarn cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. In Executive Order No. 13191, the President delegated to CITA the authority to determine whether yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the CBTPA and directed CITA to establish procedures to ensure appropriate public participation in any such determination. On March 6, 2001, CITA published procedures that it will follow in considering requests. (66 FR 13502).
On November 13, 2003, the Chairman of CITA received a petition from Alarmex Holdings Group, Inc. that certain printed, 100 percent rayon, herringbone fabric, of 220 g/m2 fabric weight, of 20's singles spun rayon yarn, of 100 X 64 construction, classified in subheading 5516.14.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting quota- and duty-free treatment under the CBTPA for apparel articles that are both cut and sewn in one or more CBTPA beneficiary countries from such fabrics.
On November 19, 2003, CITA solicited public comments regarding this request (68 FR 65256), particularly with respect to whether these fabrics can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. On December 5, 2003, CITA and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative offered to hold consultations with the relevant Congressional committees. We also requested the advice of the U.S. International Trade Commission and the relevant Industry Sector Advisory Committees.
Based on the information provided, including review of the request, public comments and advice received, and our knowledge of the industry, CITA has determined that certain printed, 100 percent rayon, herringbone fabrics, classified in subheading 5516.14.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), for use in apparel articles, can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Alarmex Holdings Group's petition is denied.
Defense Security Service, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Defense Security Service announces the proposed continuation of a public information collection affecting cleared Department of Defense contractors and seeks public comments on the provision thereof. 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 information collection, (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 22, 2004.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to: Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office (DISCO), ATTN: Ms. Virginia Heimrich, Deputy Director, 2780 Airport Dr., Suite 400, Columbus, OH 43219–2268.
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instrument, please write to the above address, or call DISCO at (614) 827–1530/1528.
The execution of the DISCO FORM 562 is a factor in making a determination as to whether a contractor employee is eligible to have a security clearance. These requirements are necessary in order to preserve and maintain the security of the United States through establishing standards to prevent the improper disclosure of classified information.
Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996.
Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604–6575.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 04–03 with attached transmittal and policy justification.
Department of Defense.
Notice of advisory committee meeting.
The Defense Science Board Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Effects Test, Evaluation and Simulation will meet in closed session on January 28–29, 2004, at SAIC, 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA. The Task Force will review DoD needs and specific requirements for nuclear weapons effects (NWE) test, evaluation and simulation capabilities.
The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting, the Defense Science Board Task Force will: Review Intelligence Community, DoD and National Nuclear
In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92–463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that this Defense Science Board Task Force meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the meeting will be closed to the public.
Department of Defense.
Notice of advisory committee meetings.
The Defense Science Board Task Force on Patriot Systems Performance will meet in closed session on March 3–4, 2004; and May 25–26, 2004, at SAIC, 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA. The Task Force will assess the recent performance of the Patriot System in OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM from deployment through use across the threat spectrum. The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At the meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will: Assess logistical, doctrine, training, personnel management, operational and material performance; identify those lessons learned which are applicable to the development of the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS); and assess the current planned spiral development of the Patriot to ensure early incorporation of fixes discovered in the lessons learned process.
In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92–463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the meetings will be closed to the public.
Department of Defense.
Notice.
Pursuant to section 10(a), Public Law 92–463, as amended, notice is hereby given of a forthcoming meeting of the Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS). The purpose of the Committee meeting is to discuss Deployment, Health Care, OPTEMPO, and Retention. The meeting is open to the public, subject to the availability of space.
February 4, 2004, 1 p.m.–5 p.m.; February 5, 2004, 8 a.m.–5:30 p.m.; February 6, 2004, 8 a.m.–5 p.m.
Doubletree Hotel Crystal City National Airport, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.
MSgt Gerald Posey, USAF, DACOWITS, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Room 2C548A, Washington, DC 20301–4000. Telephone (703) 697–2122 or Fax (703) 614–6233.
Interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and make an oral presentation of such. Persons desiring to make an oral presentation or submit a written statement to the Committee must notify the point of contact listed above no later than 5 p.m., January 30, 2004. Oral presentations by members of the public will be permitted only on Thursday, February 5, 2004, from 5:15 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. before the full Committee. Presentations will be limited to two minutes. Number of oral presentations to be made will depend on the number of requests received from members of the public. Each person desiring to make an oral presentation must provide the point of contact listed above with one (1) copy of the presentation by 5 p.m., January 30, 2004, and bring 35 copies of any material that is intended for distribution at the meeting. Persons submitting a written statement must submit 35 copies of the statement to the DACOWITS staff by 5 p.m. on January 30, 2004.
Welcome & administrative remarks; deployment and OPTEMPO briefings; Welcome new members.
Service retention reports and surveys; Public forum (5:15–5:30).
Wrap up retention and deployment; Health care; annual threat briefing; committee time–Focus group protocols with contractor.
Department of Education.
Notice of proposed information collection requests.
The Leader, Regulatory Information Management, Office of the Chief Information Officer, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
An emergency review has been requested in accordance with the Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 3507 (j)), since public harm is reasonably likely to result if normal clearance procedures are followed. Approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been requested by February 16, 2004.
Written comments regarding the emergency review should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Melanie Kadlic, Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that the Director of OMB provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Office of Management and Budget (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, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested,
The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Responses: 54.
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements, contact Sheila Carey at her e-mail address
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice inviting grant applications.
The Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER) of the Office of Science (SC), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), hereby announces its interest in receiving applications for research grants in experimental and theoretical studies of the effects of clouds on the atmospheric radiation balance in conjunction with the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program as part of the U.S. Global Climate Change Science Program (USCCSP). This notice requests new applications and renewal applications of grants currently funded by DOE under previous ARM Program notices that are relevant to the terms of reference for this announcement and responsive to the particular needs defined below.
Applicants are encouraged (but not required) to submit a brief preapplication for programmatic review. The deadline for submission of preapplications is March 15, 2004. Early submission of preapplications is encouraged to allow time for meaningful responses.
Formal applications submitted in response to this notice must be received by 4:30 p.m., E.D.T., April 9, 2004, to be accepted for merit review and to permit timely consideration for award in Fiscal Year 2005. Awards are expected to begin on or about November 1, 2004.
Preapplications referencing Program Notice DE–FG01–04ER04–10, may be sent to the program contact, Dr. Wanda Ferrell, via electronic mail at:
Formal applications referencing Program Notice DE–FG01–04ER04–10, must be sent electronically by an authorized institutional business official through DOE's Industry Interactive Procurement System (IIPS) at:
If you are unable to submit an application through IIPS, please contact the Grants and Contracts Division, Office of Science at: (301) 903–5212 or (301) 903–3604, in order to gain assistance for submission through IIPS or to receive special approval and instructions on how to submit printed applications.
Dr. Wanda Ferrell, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Climate Change Research Division, SC–74, Germantown Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585–1290, telephone (301) 903–0043, fax (301) 903–8519, Internet e-mail address:
Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program. Two major scientific objectives of the Climate Change Research Division (CCRD) are: (1) To improve the performance of predictive models of the Earth's climate, and (2) to thereby make more accurate predictions of the response of the climate system to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. The purpose of the ARM Program is to improve the treatment of radiation and clouds in the General Circulation Models (GCMs) used to predict future climate. This program is one component of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program that has the goal to improve the capability to accurately simulate and predict climate and climate change. The major component of the ARM Program involves gathering data for the development and testing of models of the atmospheric radiation transfer, properties of clouds, and the full life cycle of clouds with the ultimate goal of developing cloud system resolving models (CSRM) that directly and accurately simulate cloud-scale physical processes and that can be incorporated into the Multi-Scale Modeling Framework (MMF), also referred to as super parameterization. The ARM program has established sites in three climatic regimes where cloud and radiation data are collected. The first site, Southern Great Plains (SGP), began operation in calendar year 1992, with instruments spread over an area of approximately 60,000 sq. km., centered on Lamont, Oklahoma. The SGP was chosen as a field measurement site for several reasons including its relatively homogenous geography, wide variability of climate, cloud type, and surface flux properties, and large seasonal variation in temperature and specific humidity. The Tropical Western Pacific (TWP) site is the area roughly between 10 °N to 10 °S of the equator from Indonesia to near Christmas Island. The TWP site consists of stations at Darwin, Australia, and on the islands of Manus, Papua, New Guinea and the Republic of Nauru, respectively. This region was selected as an ARM site because it plays a large role in the interannual variability observed in the global climate system. The third site, the North Slope of Alaska (NSA), is located at Barrow, Alaska, with a secondary, inland site near Atqasuk. The NSA site was selected as an ARM site because it provides data about cloud and radiative processes at high latitudes, and by extension, about cold and dry regions of the atmosphere in general. Construction of an ARM Mobile Facility (AMF) was begun in late 2003 with the first deployment expected in late 2004. The AMF has been designed to address science questions beyond those investigated at the current fixed sites. The AMF will deploy instrumentation and data systems similar to those at the fixed ARM sites in NSA and TWP. The AMF will be deployed to sites around the world in various climatic regimes and sites of opportunity for durations of 6 to 18 months to study the effects of clouds and other atmospheric conditions and properties on radiation. The ARM sites, both mobile and fixed, have been designated as a user facility, the ARM Climate Research Facility (ACRF). Thus, AMF deployments and campaigns at the fixed ARM sites will be determined by a review by the ACRF Science Review Board.
This notice requests applications for grants, both new and renewal that address the broad ARM goal of improving the representation of cloud and radiation processes in climate models. The research areas of interest include the development of algorithms for retrieving the required measurements, studies to improve the understanding of cloud and radiation physical processes, the translation of process study results into process models and parameterizations, and the incorporation of the submodels into climate models. ARM data consist of time series of vertical profiles of certain observables while parameterizations are geared to produce statistical cloud and radiation properties on the scale of several hundred kilometers. Since the format is not amenable to modelers, research is also needed to develop tools and methodologies for making ARM data more useful for the development and testing of submodels.
Specific areas of interest to the ARM program include, but are not limited to:
• Developing new techniques to retrieve the properties of ice clouds and mixed-phase clouds from ARM data.
• Conducting analyses for improving our understanding of cloud and radiation processes including of the 3D cloud-radiation process at scales from the local atmospheric column to the GCM grid square and the relationship between atmospheric radiation and the life-cycle of ice clouds and mixed-phase clouds.
• Developing and testing new cloud and radiation submodels for global climate models.
• Incorporating new cloud and radiation submodels into global climate models and demonstrating the improved performance of the models.
• Developing and applying methodologies to use ARM data more effectively in atmospheric models, both at the cloud resolving model scale and the global climate model scale.
• Quantifying the effects of aerosols on cloud properties and the resulting radiation field, using some combination of ARM observations and physical models.
Applications are especially encouraged that utilize ARM generated data in the above activities.
Applications for research to develop new techniques to retrieve the properties of ice clouds and mixed-phase clouds using ARM data should target their research on methods for deriving long-term records of cloud microphysical and macrophysical properties at multiple locations. The improved retrieval algorithms provide bulk microphysical estimates for clouds at all ARM fixed sites and are expected to include uncertainty estimates.
Applications for cloud and radiation process analyses should propose studies that elucidate radiative transfer in cloudy atmospheres, including the overlap problem of stratiform cloud layers. These studies may include, but are not limited to, 3-D radiative transfer, representations of cloud overlap, mixed phase clouds, cloud life cycles, feedback processes (especially in the Arctic), and other processes important for clouds, such as convection and turbulence and their effects on radiative transfer. The emphasis on the Arctic feedback is to test the hypothesis that links large climate feedbacks with surface and tropospheric temperatures, surface albedo, cloud cover, deep ocean water production (the global thermohaline ocean circulation pump), and the polar atmospheric heat sink.
Applications for research to develop and test new cloud and radiation process models should focus on investigating the validity of assumptions that are associated with such models and how well the ensemble of cloud and radiation sub models simulate clouds and their effect on radiation fields in the climate models.
Applications requesting funds to study incorporation of cloud and radiation parameterizations into global climate models and demonstrating the improved performance of the models are expected to provide a clear plan describing the method to be used to quantify the model improvement. Applicants are strongly encouraged to utilize the tools that have been developed for this purpose in the
Applications for research to develop and apply methodologies to use ARM data more effectively in atmospheric models should focus on converting ARM data that usually consist of time series of vertical profiles of certain observables into a form that is of improved utility by climate modelers. This research area also includes techniques for converting model output to a form that is equivalent ARM measurements, thus, enabling the direct comparison of model-produced cloud properties with ARM observations.
Applications for research to quantify the effect of aerosols on the radiation field should focus on both the indirect and direct role of aerosols on radiative transfer and cloud properties. Specifically the research should relate observations of radiative fluxes and radiances to the atmospheric composition and use these relations to develop and test parameterizations and/or process models to accurately predict the atmospheric radiative properties. Note, that the DOE Atmospheric Science Program (ASP) is being reconfigured in Fiscal Year 2004, to focus on aerosol radiative forcing with new research to be funded early in Fiscal Year 2005, and will support aerosol research on aerosol processes and resulting properties that influence radiation fields. A joint ARM–ASP working group will be formed to foster and facilitate collaborations between the two programs.
Applications that require a special field campaign, which has not already been planned and approved by the ARM Program Manager, will not be accepted for consideration.
To ensure that the program meets the broadest needs of the research community and the specific needs of the DOE CCRD, successful applicants are expected to participate as ARM Science Team members in the appropriate working group(s) relevant to their efforts. Costs for participation in ARM Science Team meetings and subcommittee meetings should be based on two trips of 1 week each to Washington, DC, and two trips of 3 days each to Chicago, Illinois.
It is anticipated that approximately $3 million will be available for awards in Fiscal Year 2005, contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds. Multiple-year funding of awards is expected, with out-year funding also contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds, progress of the research, and programmatic needs. The allocation of funds within the research areas will depend upon the number and quality of applications received. Awards are expected to begin on or about November 1, 2004. Equal consideration will be given to renewal and new applications. DOE is under no obligation to pay for any costs associated with the preparation or submission of applications if an award is not made.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to collaborate with researchers in other institutions, such as: universities, industry, non-profit organizations, federal laboratories and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), including the DOE National Laboratories, where appropriate, and to include cost sharing wherever feasible. Additional information on collaboration is available in the Application Guide for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program that is available via the World Wide Web at:
Potential applicants are strongly encouraged to submit a brief preapplication that consists of two to three pages of narrative describing the research objectives and methods of accomplishment. These will be reviewed relative to the scope and research needs of the ARM Program. Principal Investigator (PI) address, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address are required parts of the preapplication. A response to each preapplication discussing the potential program relevance of research that would be proposed in a formal application generally will be communicated within 15 days of receipt. Use of e-mail for this communication will decrease the possibility of a delay in responses to the preapplication. The deadline for the submission of preapplications is March 15, 2004. Applicants should allow sufficient time so that the formal application deadline is met. SC's preapplication policy can be found on SC's Grants and Contracts Web site at:
Applications will be subjected to formal merit review (peer review) and will be evaluated against the following evaluation criteria which are listed in descending order of importance codified at 10 CFR 605.10(d):
1. Scientific and/or Technical Merit of the Project;
2. Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach;
3. Competency of Applicant's Personnel and Adequacy of Proposed Resources;
4. Reasonableness and Appropriateness of the Proposed Budget.
The evaluation process will include program policy factors such as the relevance of the proposed research to the terms of the announcement and the agency's programmatic needs. Note, external peer reviewers are selected with regard to both their scientific expertise and the absence of conflict-of-interest issues. Both Federal and non-Federal reviewers will often be used, and submission of an application constitutes agreement that this is acceptable to the investigator(s) and the submitting institution.
Information about the development and submission of applications, eligibility, limitations, evaluation, selection process, and other policies and procedures may be found in the Application Guide for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program and 10 CFR Part 605. Electronic access to SC's Financial Assistance Application Guide and required forms is made available via the World Wide Web:
The technical portion of the application should not exceed twenty-five double-spaced pages and should include detailed budgets for each year of support requested. Applicants are asked to use the following ordered format:
• Face Page (DOE F 4650.2 (10–91)) In block 15, also provide the PI's phone number, fax number and e-mail address.
• Project Abstract Page; single page only, should contain title, PI name, and abstract text
• Budget pages for each year and a budget summary of project period (using DOE F 4620.1)
• Budget Explanation
• Project Description:
• Long Term Measure:
• Literature Cited
• Collaborative Arrangements (if applicable)
• Facilities and Resources
• Biographical Sketches should be submitted in a form similar to that of NIH or NSF (two to three pages).
• Current and Pending Support
• Letters of Collaboration (if applicable)
• Renewal applications should include a special section entitled “Accomplishments Under Previous Support.” (See
(a) continued relevance of their work to the goals of the ARM Program; and
(b) the contribution of work conducted under previous support to the goals of the ARM Program, including a listing of publications and presentations.
For researchers who do not have access to the World Wide Web (WWW), please contact Karen Carlson, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Climate Change Research Division, SC–74/Germantown Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585–1290, phone: (301) 903–3338, fax: (301) 903-8519, e-mail:
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this program is 81.049, and the solicitation control number is ERFAP 10 CFR part 605.
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 7, 2004, PSI Energy, Inc. and Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) tendered for filing an application requesting all necessary authorizations under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824b (2000), for PSI Energy, Inc. and NIPSCO to engage in a transfer of limited transmission assets from NIPSCO to PSI Energy, Inc.
NIPSCO states that copies of this filing have been served on the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.
Take notice that on January 7, 2004, the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) tendered for filing a compliance filing in connection with the Commission's December 23, 2003 Order in the above-referenced dockets.
The NYISO states it has served a copy of this filing to all parties listed on the official service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission in these proceedings. The NYISO further states that it has served a copy of this filing to all parties that have executed Service Agreements under the NYISO's Open-Access Transmission Tariff or Services Tariff, the New York State Public Service Commission and to the electric utility regulatory agencies in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Take notice that on January 8, 2004, New York Independent System Operator Inc. (NYISO) tendered for filing its second 10-Minute Non-Synchronous Reserve Market Report (Report). NYISO states that the Report is in response to Commission's July 1, 2003 Order Conditionally Accepting Proposed Tariff Revisions that was issued in Docket No. ER03–836–000.
Take notice that on January 8, 2004, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO), pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act and section 35.13 of the Commission's regulations 18 CFR 35.13 (2002), submitted for filing a second revised Interconnection and Operating Agreement among Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., a Division of MDU Resources Group, Inc. and Montana-
Midwest states that a copy of this filing was served on all parties.
Take notice that on January 8, 2004, Green Power Partners I LLC (Green Power) submitted for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a Notice of Withdrawal of its application, as amended, requesting approval of a rate schedule, Rate Schedule FERC No. 3, pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act and Section 35.12 of the regulations of the Commission.
Take notice that on December 24, 2003, System Energy Resources, Inc. (SERI) tendered for filing revisions to the Master Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Fund Agreement between SERI and Irving Trust Company (Decommissioning Agreement). The Decommissioning Agreement is designed as SERI Rate Schedule No. 4. SERI states that the revisions are designed to implement a recent rulemaking by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that requires these revisions. SERI requests an effective date of December 24, 2003.
Take notice that on January 7, 2004, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) tendered for filing a Generator Special Facilities Agreement and Generator Interconnection Agreement between PG&E and the following generators: GWF Energy LLC—Hanford, Sunrise Cogeneration and Power Company, La Paloma Generating Company, Ltd., NEO Corporation—Chowchilla, and Fresno Cogeneration Partners, LP. PG&E states that the primary purpose of this filing is to obtain Commission authorization to commence payment of credits to the generators for generator-funded network upgrades, in accordance with current Commission policy. PG&E has requested certain waivers.
PG&E states that copies of this filing have been served upon GWF Hanford, Sunrise, La Paloma, NEO Chowchilla, Fresno, the California Independent System Operator Corporation and the CPUC.
Take notice that on January 7, 2004, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), submitted for filing an executed Construction Service Agreement (CSA) among PJM and U.S. General Services Administration Federal Research Center, White Oak, and Potomac Electric Power Company. PJM requests a waiver of the Commission's 60-day notice requirement to permit a December 23, 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 8, 2004, Ameren Services Company (ASC) tendered for filing an executed Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement and Network Operating Agreement between ASC and The City of St. James, Missouri. ASC asserts that the purpose of the Agreement is to permit ASC to provide transmission service to The City of St. James, Missouri pursuant to Ameren's Open Access Transmission Tariff.
Take notice that on January 8, 2004, Avista Corporation (Avista) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Original Service Agreement No. 305, which is an Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Power between Avista and Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, Washington (Douglas). Avista respectfully requests that the Commission grant all waivers necessary to allow Service Agreement No. 305 to become effective January 1, 2004.
Avista states that copies of the filing were served upon Douglas, the sole party to the Service Agreement.
Take notice that on January 8, 2004, DC Energy, LLC submitted for filing, pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act, and Part 35 of the Commission's regulations, an application for authorization to make sales, as a power marketer, of capacity, energy, and certain Ancillary Services at market-based rates; to reassign transmission capacity; and to resell firm transmission rights.
Take notice that on January 8, 2004, American Transmission Company LLC (ATCLLC) tendered for filing a Generation-Transmission Interconnection Agreement between ATCLLC and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation for the Weston 4 generating Facilities. ATCLLC requests an effective date of December 22, 2003.
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
The following Notice of Meeting is Published Pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94–409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
January 22, 2004, 10 a.m.
Room 2C, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426
Open.
Agenda.
Items Listed on the Agenda May be Deleted Without Further Notice.
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502–8400, For a Recording Listing Items Stricken from or Added to the Meeting, Call (202) 502–8627.
This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all papers relevant to the items on the Agenda; however, all public documents may be examined in the Reference and Information Center.
GP98–16, 000, Union Pacific Resources Co.
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. No. 94–409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
January 23, 2004, 9:30 a.m.
Part I: FERC, Hearing Room 3M 4A/B, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Part II: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
Closed.
Non-public, investigations and inquiries and enforcement related matters.
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502–8400.
Chairman Wood and Commissioners Brownell, Kelliher, and Kelly voted to hold a closed meeting on January 23, 2004. The certification of the General Counsel explaining the action closed the meeting is available for public inspection in the Commission's Public Reference Room at 888 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20426.
The Chairman and the Commissioners, their assistants, the Commission's Secretary and her assistant, the General Counsel and members of her staff, and a stenographer are expected to attend the meeting. Other staff members from the Commission's program offices who will advise the Commissioners in the matters discussed will also be present. Staff from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will be meeting with FERC Commissioners at an extension of FERC's closed meeting to be held at the NRC headquarters. FERC Commissioners and NRC staff will discuss matters of mutual concern to the two agencies.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 23, 2004.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number OPA–2003–0001, to (1) EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to
William “Nick” Nichols, Oil Program, Office of Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, and Response (OEPPR) (5203G), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 603–9918; fax number: (703) 603–9116; e-mail address: nichols.nick@epa.gov.
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On July 7, 2003 (68 FR 40262), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA has addressed the comment received.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OPA–2003–0001, which is available for public viewing at the Office of Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Oil Program Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Oil Program Docket is (202) 566–2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at
Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of public meeting.
The Office of Environmental Information, the Office of Research and Development and EPA's Regional Offices are conducting national dialogue sessions with a broad spectrum of stakeholders to solicit feedback on the Draft Report on the Environment issued June 26, 2003. EPA conducted 5 sessions in November and December 2003 and invited representatives from State governments, tribes, academia, non-governmental organizations, local agencies and business and industry. The meetings were announced in the October 15, 2003
The date for the dialogue session is February 12, 2004, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Dawn Banks-Waller, Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Analysis and Access, Environmental Analysis Division, (2842T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW., Washington DC 20460. Telephone (202) 566–0625, fax (202) 566–1066 or e-mail
On June 26, 2003, EPA released the Draft Report on the Environment (RoE) and its accompanying Technical Document. The report presents its first-ever national picture of the U.S. environment. The report describes what EPA knows—and doesn't know—about the current state of the environment at the national level, and how the environment is changing. The report highlights the progress our nation has made in protecting its air, water, and land resources and describes the measure that can be used to track the status of the environment and human health.
EPA has issued the report as a draft to stimulate dialogue and invite input into developing and improving environmental indicators in the future. The national dialogue sessions are a first step in soliciting feedback on the report and will focus on:
• Assessing the quality, structure, relevance, appropriateness of, and needed improvements to the reports,
• Identifying additional or new questions/indicators, changes in indicators, gaps, indicator improvements, etc., and
• Assessing the use of the report for planning and decision making.
Feedback obtained from these sessions will be used to shape the next and future editions of the Report.
To view, download, or order hardcopies of the RoE and the Technical Document or to provide comments on the documents, please visit the EPA Environmental Indicators Initiative Web site at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces receipt of applications to register pesticide products containing new active ingredients not included in any previously registered products pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c)(4) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended.
Written comments, identified by the docket ID number OPP–2003–0400, must be received on or before February 23, 2004.
Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
Adam Heyward, Product Manager 34, or the Product Reviewer, Bonaventure Akinlosotu, Antimicrobials Division (7510C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 308–6422; e-mail address: heyward.adam@epa.gov.
This action is directed to the public in general. You may be potentially affected by this action if you
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternative ways to improve the registration activity.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA received applications as follows to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any previously registered products pursuant to the provision of section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on the applications.
Environmental protection, Pesticides, pest, Bethoxazin, Polyxylenol teterasulfide.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities.
Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP–2003–0409, must be received on or before February 23, 2004.
Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
Joanne I. Miller, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 305–6224; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS 111)
• Animal production (NAICS 112)
• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408(d)(3). The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represent the views of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.
EPA has received a pesticide petition (0F6131) from Arvesta Corporation, 100 First Street, Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94105 proposing, pursuant to
1.
2.
The LOQ of the method was 0.010 ppm. The recoveries from the various crop matrices fortified at 0.01 ppm with amicarbazone and related plant metabolites ranged from 79% to 104%. The recoveries from the various crop matrices fortified at 0.10 ppm with amicarbazone and related plant metabolites ranged from 106% to 119%. The LOD in matrices ranged from 0.0011 to 0.0097 ppm.
ii.
3.
One field trial was conducted to evaluate the quantity of amicarbazone residues in sugarcane, molasses, bagasse, and refined sugar in support of an import tolerance. Following an application at 5x the maximum expected rate for amicarbazone on sugarcane, the highest average field trial amicarbazone residues in sugarcane
A processing study was conducted to evaluate the quantity of amicarbazone in corn processed products. The residues of amicarbazone and two metabolites DA and iPr-2-OH DA, were quantitated by LC/MS/MS. The LOQ was 0.01 ppm for corn grain and all corn processed commodities. Total amicarbazone residues in corn grain were
Processing studies on the rotational crops cottonseed, soybean, and wheat were also conducted following an application at 5x (cottonseed) or 1x (soybean and wheat) the maximum expected labeled rate on corn. Total amicarbazone residues in all cotton seed fractions (meal refined oil and hulls) were
1.
ii. Amicarbazone is minimally toxic to rats following a single dermal application. The dermal LD
iii. An acute inhalation study with rats demonstrated minimal toxicity following a 4–hour exposure to the test compound as a respirable dust. The inhalation LC
iv. A primary eye irritation study in rabbits showed no positive ocular effects, and only very slight, reversible irritation.
v. A dermal irritation study in rabbits showed that amicarbazone is not irritating to the skin.
vi. Amicarbazone has no skin sensitizing potential under the conditions of the buehler topical closed-patch technique in guinea pigs.
2.
3.
ii. Two developmental toxicity studies were conducted with amicarbazone in the Sprague-Dawley rat. In the first study, gravid dams were administered 0, 15, 100, or 300 mg/kg bwt/day on days 6 through 19 of gestation. Maternal effects were observed at the 100 and 300 mg/kg dose levels, and included decreased food consumption, decreased body weight, and increased liver weight. No test compound-related maternal effects were noted in the 15 mg/kg dose group. An increase in nonviable fetuses and decreased fetal weight were observed in the 300 mg/kg dose level, and an increase in fetal skeletal variations was noted in the 100 and 300 mg/kg dose groups. A supplemental study was conducted to substantiate the developmental NOAEL of 15 mg/kg from the initial study. In the subsequent study gravid Sprague-Dawley rats were administered amicarbazone at 0, 5, and 15 mg/kg bwt/day on gestation days 6 through 19. No test compound-related maternal or developmental effects were observed at any dose level. Based on the findings from both rodent studies, there is no teratogenic potential for amicarbazone in the rat, and both the maternal and developmental NOAELs were established at 15 mg/kg bwt/day.
iii. Two developmental toxicity studies were conducted with amicarbazone in the himalayan rabbit. In the first study, gravid does were administered 0, 5, 20, or 70 mg/kg bwt/day on gestation days 6 through 28 post-coitum. A maternal NOAEL of 5 mg/kg bwt/day was established based on decreased body weight at dose levels of 20 and 70 mg/kg bwt/day. The NOAEL for developmental parameters was 20 mg/kg bwt/day based on a marginal decrease in fetal weight and a corresponding marginal effect on fetal skeletal ossification. A supplemental developmental toxicity study was conducted in the rabbit to confirm the absence of treatment-related malformations. In this study gravid does were administered amicarbazone at 0 or 70 mg/kg bwt/day on gestation days 6 through 28. Decreased feed consumption, decreased water consumption, and decreased body weight were observed (as in the first study) in the 70 mg/kg bwt/day group. Also as noted in the previous study, fetal weight was decreased and an accompanying effect on fetal skeletal ossification was observed. Based on the findings from both rabbit studies, there is no teratogenic potential for amicarbazone in the rabbit, and thematernal and developmental NOAELs are 5 and 20 mg/kg bwt/day, respectively.
4.
ii. A 90–day feeding study was conducted in which Fischer 344 rats were exposed to 0,100, 250, 500, 1,000, 2,500, or 5,000 ppm amicarbazone in the diet for 13 weeks. Body weight gain was reduced at dietary levels of 1,000 ppm and greater in both males and females. Hematology and clinical chemistry parameters were affected in the males and females of the 1,000, 2,500, and 5,000 ppm groups. No gross pathological alterations were described in any group. Through approximately 13 weeks of continuous and repeated dietary exposure to amicarbazone, the toxicological response of the rat could be broadly characterized as involving structural and/or functional alterations in liver-, thyroid-, pancreatic-, and hematologic-related (spleen and bone marrow) endpoints. There were no adverse compound-related effects in the various parameters associated with these target organs at doses up to and including 500 ppm (equivalent to 33 mg
iii. In a dose range-finding toxicity study, CD-1 mice were continuously exposed to 0, 25, 50, 100, 250, 500, 1,000, 2,500, 5,000, or 7,000 ppm amicarbazone in the diet for 6 weeks. Effects observed during the study included decreased body weight (7,000 ppm males only), affected clinical chemistry parameters (500–7,000 ppm, males and/or females, depending on endpoint), and alterations in hematology endpoints (2,500–7,000 ppm, males and/or females, depending on endpoint). Organ weight effects were limited to significantly increased liver weights, noted in both the males and females at 500 ppm and above. Compound-related histopathology included hepatocytomegaly (500–7,000 ppm), thyroid follicular cell hypertrophy (5,000–7,000 ppm), and splenic pigmentation (5,000–7,000 ppm). No effects were noted in either the males or females of the 250 ppm level.
iv. A 90–day feeding study in the dog at levels of 0, 200, 800, and 2,000 ppm amicarbazone established a NOAEL of 200 ppm (equivalent to 6.74 mg/kg bwt/day) in the males and a NOAEL of 200 ppm (equivalent to 6.28 mg/kg bwt/day) in the females. Effects observed at 2,000 ppm and to a lesser extent in the 800 ppm group included elevated liver and thyroid weights, decreased thymus weight, and affected clinical chemistry and hematology parameters. Compound-related histopathology was noted in the liver, gall bladder, and thyroid of males and/or females (depending on endpoint) of the 2,000 ppm level. The NOAEL was established in the females based on a slight induction of hepatic enzymes at the 200 ppm dietary level. In contrast affected hepatic enzymes were only observed in the males of the 800 and 2,000 ppm groups.
5.
ii. In a chronic toxicity study in the mouse, CD-1 mice were continuously exposed to 0, 100, 1,500, or 4,000 ppm amicarbazone in the diet for 18-months. Compound-related effects were limited to organ weight changes, including pronounced increases in liver weights in the 1,500 and 4,000 ppm males and females, and decreased kidney weights in 4,000 ppm males and females. Histopathological considerations included an increased incidence of splenic pigmentation in 1,500 and 4,000 ppm males and 4,000 ppm males and females as well as hepatocellular hypertrophy in all doses tested. The hypertrophy was indicative of an adaptive response by the liver to an increased need to facilitate the metabolism and excretion of an exogenously administered test substance. While the response at 100 ppm (equivalent to 16 and 18 mg/kg bwt/day for the males and females, respectively) could be characterized as a slight physiologically adaptive response, morphological evidence demonstrated an increasingly severe response at 1,500 and 4,000 ppm, suggesting that the animals had been pushed near physiological limit. There was no evidence of a compound-induced neoplastic response in any tissue examined.
iii. A 1–year feeding study in dogs at dietary levels of 0, 75, 100, 300, and 1,200 ppm amicarbazone established a NOAEL of 75 ppm for both males and females (equivalent to 1.6 and 1.8 mg/kg bwt/day for the males and females, respectively). Mild neurological signs (described as secondary neuromuscular in nature) were noted in the 1,200 ppm females: Three at 6 months and one at 12 months. No other females, and no males were affected. Clinical pathology parameters, including triglyceride, cholesterol, albumin, globulin, and several hepatic enzymes,were, in general, affected in both the males and females of the 1,200 ppm group, to a lesser extent in the 300 ppm group, and in some cases in the 100 ppm group. Hematology parameters, including platelets, hemoglobin, hematocrit, and eosinophils, were affected primarily in the 1,200 ppm group, and to a lesser extent in the 300 and 100 ppm groups. Terminal body weight was unaffected by treatment and there were no gross lesions ascribed to the test compound. Compound-related effects on organ weights were limited to the liver and thymus. Relative and absolute liver weights were increased in the 300 and 1,200 ppm males and the 1,200 ppm females, and absolute and relative thymus weights were decreased in the 1,200 ppm males. Compound-related micropathology lesions were limited to minimal to slight diffuse thymic a trophy in all 1,200 ppm males and one 1,200 ppm female. There was no evidence of a compound-induced neoplastic response in any tissue examined.
6.
7.
ii. In a similar battery of tests, amicarbazone-oxadiazolinone was evaluated as above. In the eye irritation study corneal opacity and irritation to the iris were observed up to 21 days after treatment. The conjunctiva were not affected by instillation of the test compound. Dermal irritation was observed up to 24-hours following exposure to the test compound. Based on the findings of the guinea pig maximization test, the test compound does not exhibit skin sensitizing properties. Similarly, the test compound did not demonstrate any mutagenic potential following evaluation using the
8.
1.
ii.
2.
Amicarbazone falls into the category of triazolinone herbicides. There is no information to suggest that any members of this class of herbicides has a common mechanism of mammalian toxicity or even produce similar effects, so it is not appropriate to combine exposures of amicarbazone with other herbicides. Arvesta Corporation is considering only the potential risk of amicarbazone.
1.
2.
Amicarbazone is registered for use on corn and sugarcane in Brazil. The tolerance for these uses in 0.02 ppm.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of proposed settlement.
Under section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has entered into an Administrative Agreement (Agreement) at the Brunswick Wood Preserving Superfund Site (Site) located in Glynn County, Brunswick, Georgia, with Kerr-McGee Chemical L.L.C. EPA will consider public comments on the Agreement until February 23, 2004. EPA may withdraw from or modify the Agreement should such comments disclose facts or considerations which indicate the Agreement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. Copies of the Agreement are available from: Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Waste Management Division, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562–8887.
Written comment may be submitted to Greg Armstrong at the above address within 30 days of the date of publication.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Region II, of a proposed administrative agreement pursuant to section 122(h) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(h), with the settling parties, Morgan Materials, Inc. (“Morgan”), and Donald Sadkin (collectively, the “Settling Parties”), for recovery of past response costs concerning the Morgan Materials, Inc. Superfund Site (“Site”) located in the City of Buffalo, Erie County, New York. The settlement requires payments to the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund which total $425,000: $300,000 from Morgan, and $125,000 from Donald Sadkin. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the Settling Parties pursuant to section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), for EPA's past response costs. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the settlement. EPA will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper or inadequate. EPA's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at EPA Region II, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007–1866.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 23, 2004.
To request a copy of the proposed settlement agreement, please contact the individual identified below. The proposed settlement is also available for public inspection at EPA Region II offices at 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007–1866. Comments should reference the Morgan Materials, Inc. Superfund Site, City of Buffalo, Erie County, New York, Index No. CERCLA–02–2004–2002.
Brian Carr, Assistant Regional Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway—17th Floor, New York, New York 10007–1866. Telephone: 212–637–3170.
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law 104–13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before March 22, 2004. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments to Les Smith, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1–A804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet to
For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Les Smith at (202) 418–0217 or via the Internet at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; solicitation of comments.
In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau sought comment on the NPCR, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners' petition seeking designation as an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) to receive federal universal service support for service offered in certain rural and non-rural study areas in the state of Florida.
Comments are due on or before February 2, 2004. Reply comments are due on or before February 17, 2004.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. See
Karen Franklin, Attorney, Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, (202) 418–7400, TTY (202) 418–0484.
This is a summary of the Commission's public notice, CC Docket No. 96–45, DA 03–4113, released December 30, 2003. On September 16, 2003, NPCR, Inc. d/b/a/ Nextel Partners (Nextel Partners) filed a petition seeking designation as an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC). Nextel Partners provides commercial mobile radio service and seeks designation as an ETC so that it can receive federal universal service support for its service offered in the State of Florida in rural study areas currently served by GTC, Inc.”FL, Frontier Communications'South, ALLTEL Florida, Inc., and Quincey Telephone Company and in non-rural wire centers served by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.
Nextel Partners contends that the Florida Public Service Commission (Florida Commission) does not regulate commercial mobile radio service providers for purposes of ETC designations and provides a declaration from the Florida Commission asserting its lack of jurisdiction. Nextel Partners submits that the Commission has jurisdiction under section 214(e)(6) to consider and grant its petition. Nextel Partners also maintains that it satisfies all the statutory and regulatory prerequisites for ETC designation and that its designation as an ETC will serve the public interest.
The petitioner must provide copies of its petition to the Florida Commission. The Commission will also send a copy of this public notice to the Florida Commission by overnight express mail to ensure that the Florida Commission is notified of the notice and comment period.
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments as follows: comments are due February 2, 2004, and reply comments are due February 17, 2004. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See
Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to
Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears 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
Parties also must send three paper copies of their filing to Sheryl Todd, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5–B540, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20054.
Pursuant to § 1.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206, this proceeding will be conducted as a permit-but-disclose proceeding in which
Tuesday, January 27, 2004 at 10 a.m.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, § 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee.
The starting time for the open meeting on January 29, 2004 has been changed to 2 p.m.)
Thursday, January 29, 2004, 2 p.m.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Correction and Approval of Minutes.
Draft Advisory Opinion 2004–01: Bush-Cheney '04, Inc. and Alice Forgy Kerr for Congress by Messrs. Benjamin L. Ginsberg, Thomas J. Josefiak, and William H. Piper, III.
Routine Administrative Matters.
Robert W. Biersack, Acting Officer, Telephone: (202) 694–1220.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties can review or obtain copies of agreements at the Washington, DC offices of the Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Room 940. Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
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 4, 2004.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 15, 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 15, 2004.
Office of the Secretary.
Notice of meeting.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is hereby giving notice that the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) will hold a meeting. The meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be held on February 3, 2004, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on February 4, 2004, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.
Department of Health and Human Services; Room 800 Humphrey Building; 200 Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC 20201
Ms. Carolin Commodore, Staff Assistant, National Vaccine Program Office and Executive Secretary, National Vaccine Advisory Committee; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Room 725H Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201; (202) 260–1253.
Pursuant to Section 2101 of the Public Service Act (42 U.S.C. Section 300aa-1), the Secretary of Health and Human Services was mandated to establish the National Vaccine Program (NVP) to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization and to achieve optimal prevention against adverse reactions to vaccines. The Secretary designated the Assistant Secretary for Health to serve as the Director, NVP. The National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) was established to provide advice and make recommendations to the Director, NVP, on matters related to the program's responsibilities.
Topics to be discussed at the meeting include: Influenza, the smallpox vaccine program, poliovirus laboratory containment, an update on Project BioShield, vaccine supply, and NVPO unmet needs funds.
A tentative agenda will be made available for review on the NVPO Web site:
Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals must provide a photo ID for entry into the Humphrey Building. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the designated contact person. Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments at the meeting. Public comment will be limited to five minutes per speaker. Any members of the public who wish to have printed material distributed to NVAC members should submit materials to the Executive Secretary, NVAC, whose contact information is listed above prior to close of business January 15, 2004. Pre-registration is required for both public attendance and comment. Any individual who wishes to attend the meeting and/or participate in the public comment session should call the telephone number listed in the contact information to register.
The National Vaccine Program Office was organizationally relocated to the Office of Public Health and Science on October 1, 2003.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact William Freas or Denise H. Royster at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is providing notice of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between FDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Research and Development. The purpose of the MOU is to expedite research and development of new methods and technologies that can be implemented in support of Homeland Security efforts by Federal, State or local government entities as well as authorized private sector organizations to avert and/or mitigate the effects of terrorist activities in the United States.
The agreement became effective February 19, 2003.
Frederick L. Fricke, Jr., Forensic Chemistry Center (HFR–CE500), Food and Drug Administration, 6751 Steger Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45237, 513–679–2700, ext. 180.
In accordance with 21 CFR 20.108(c), which states that all written agreements and MOUs between FDA and others shall be published in the
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, DHHS.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852–3804; telephone: 301/496–7057; fax: 301/402–0220. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent applications.
Bruce Chesebro, Byron Caughey, Joelle Chabry, Susette Priola (NIAID). U.S. Patent 6,211,149 issued on 03 Apr 2001 (DHHS Reference No. E–189–1998/0–US–02); U.S. Patent 6,355,610 issued on 12 Mar 2002 (DHHS Reference No. E–189–1998/0–US–03); U.S. Patent Application No. 10/096,080 filed 11 Mar 2002 (DHHS Reference No. E–189–1998/0–US–04).
Protease-resistant prion proteins are actively associated with various transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). These include Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans and Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (“mad cow disease”) in cattle.
The present invention discloses proprietary peptides and potential pharmaceutical compositions using such peptides that inhibit the formation of protease-resistant prion protein aggregates. These aggregates develop into amyloid deposits in the brain of affected patients, leading to the development of the spongiform encephalopathy. The peptides, when used in vitro inhibit such aggregation. Furthermore, when used in pharmaceutical compositions and medically relevant dosages, may be used for therapies for TSEs.
Winslow S. Caughey, Byron Caughey, Lynne D. Raymond, Motohiro Horiuchi (NIAID). U.S. Patent 6,632,808 issued on 14 Oct 2003 (DHHS Reference No. E–205–1998/0–US–03).
This invention discloses methods, compounds and compositions for therapeutic treatment of amyloidogenic diseases, like Alzheimer's disease, type 2 diabetes and, particularly, transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (prion diseases) such as CJD, Kuru in humans and BSE (“Mad Cow Disease”) in cattle.
The invention is based on the findings that cyclic tetrapyrroles and derivatives inhibit the formation of protease-resistant prion protein (PrP-res) the pathologic, amyloidogenic protein aggregates of the prion diseases. These methods and compounds have the potential for the development of pharmaceutical therapies for the treatment and prevention of progression of such TSEs.
Byron Caughey, Richard E. Race (NIAID).
U.S. Patent 5,276,059 issued on 04 Jan 1994 (DHHS Reference No. E–107–1992/0–US–01).
Amyloid deposition in brain samples is diagnostic for several serious and fatal diseases. These include Alzheimer's disease as well as several transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (prion diseases) such as CJD and BSE (“Mad Cow Disease”). Together, these diseases having amyloid depositions are termed amyloidogenic diseases.
This invention covers and discloses the method and compositions of using Congo Red in the treatment of such amyloidogenic diseases. Congo Red is shown to inhibit the accumulation of PrP-res, the amyloidogenic and pathologic protein or the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. The potential therapeutics covered by this invention includes Congo Red and its derivatives.
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852–3804; telephone: 301/496–7057; fax: 301/402–0220. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent applications.
Klaus Strebel, Stephan Bour, Kim-Lien Nguyen (NIAID); DHHS Reference No. E–041–2004/0—Research Tool/Biological Material; Licensing Contact: Michael Ambrose; 301/594–6565;
Expression of the HIV–1 Vif protein in the absence of other viral factors such a Tat and Rev is extremely inefficient due to the presence of inhibitory sequences on its mRNA. This invention uses codon optimization to remove such inhibitory sequences without altering the amino acid sequence of the protein. The modified vif gene in the resulting pcDNA -hVIF vector is expressed under the control of the CMV promoter. In this, the protein functions as wild type and is more amendable to high-level expression in mammalian cells.
Currently this vector is used in on-going studies of HIV infection and its
James M. Musser and Benfang Lei (NIAID); U.S. Provisional Application filed 10 Nov 2003 (DHHS Reference No. E–324–2003/0-US–01); Licensing Contact: Susan Ano; 301/435–5515;
The current technology describes sixteen isolated and purified Spy polypeptides that are conserved across many Group A Streptococcus serotypes and that are expressed during infection. The polypeptides are from the polypeptide portion of a lipoprotein of a Group A Streptococcus. Infection with Group A Streptococcus bacteria can result in mild illness such as strep throat, or more severe illnesses such as necrotizing faciitis and streptococcal toxic shock syndrome. Currently such infections are treated with antibiotics, but trends indicate an increasing resistance to
Arabella Leet (NIDCR); DHHS Reference No. E–309–2003/0-US–01 filed 27 Oct 2003; Licensing Contact: Michael Shmilovich; 301/435–5019;
A standard pair of pliers was modified to create a device that applies three-point bending forces across the leg of a mouse directly over the tibia bone. With this device, a reproducible transverse fracture can be fashioned quickly and easily, producing an animal model for fracture healing.
Although surgical fixation can be applied to the fracture, short-term splinting allows abundant bridging callus formation. This device does not require a platform for stabilizing the animals; instead the jaws are placed directly onto the limb, allowing production of many fractures within minutes. By using three-point fixation, there is no crush type injury, as when using a guillotine-type device to drop a weight onto a pre-rodded bone.
Scientists studying fracture healing will find this simple device useful because no special surgical skills are required to produce and stabilize a fracture in a mouse model of fracture healing.
Pursuant to Pub. L. 92–463, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society (SACGHS), U.S. Public Health Service. The meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on March 1, 2004 and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on March 2, 2004, at the Marriott Hotel Bethesda on 5151 Pooks Hill Road in Bethesda, Maryland. The meeting will be open to the public with attendance limited to space available. The meeting also will be webcast.
The first half of the first day will be devoted to a presentation on and discussion of the work of the Committee's Inter-Meeting Task Force and priority setting process. The second half of the first day will consist of presentations on the issue of coverage and reimbursement, a possible priority area for the Committee. The second day will be entirely devoted to discussions around the top priorities and Committee action in these areas. Time will be provided each day for public comment.
Under authority of 42 U.S.C. 217a, section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, the Department of Health and Human Services established SACGHS to serve as a public forum for deliberations on the broad range of human health and societal issues raised by the development and use of genetic technologies and, as warranted, to provide advice on these issues.
The draft meeting agenda and other information about SACGHS, including information about access to the webcast, will be available at the following Web site:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)94) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to Public Law 92–463, notice is hereby given of the meeting of the SAMHSA Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) National Advisory Council in January 2004.
The meeting will be open portion and will include the CSAP's Director's Report and updates on the Center's programs and on the Faith-Based Summit, and discussions of administrative matters and announcements. If anyone needs special accommodations for persons with disabilities, please notify the contact listed below.
A summary of this meeting, a roster of committee members and substantive program information may be obtained from Ms. Carol Watkins, Executive Secretary, Rockwall II Building, Suite 900, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone: (301) 443–9542. Public comments are welcome. Please communicate with the individual listed below as contact for guidance.
Carol D. Watkins, Executive Secretary, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockwall II Building, Suite 900, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone: (301) 443–9542.
Coast Guard, DHS. Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice of application.
The Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration (MARAD) give notice, as required by the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended, that they have received an application for the licensing of a deepwater port, and that the application appears to contain the required information. This notice summarizes the applicant's plans and the procedures that will be followed in considering the application.
Any public hearing held in connection with this application must be held no later than September 20, 2004, and it would be announced in the
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG–2004–16860 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
If you have questions on this notice, call Lieutenant Derek Dostie at 202–267–0226, or email at
You may submit comments concerning this application. All comments received will be posted, without change, to
A deepwater port must be licensed, and the Act provides that a license applicant submit detailed plans for its facility to the Secretary of Transportation, along with its application. The Secretary has delegated the processing of deepwater port applications to the Coast Guard and MARAD. The Act allows 21 days following receipt of the application to determine if it contains all required information. If it does, we must publish a notice of application in the
Gulf Landing's terminal would be capable of storing up to 180,000 cubic meters of LNG and vaporizing up to 1.2 billion cubic feet per day. Gulf Landing proposes to construct, own, and operate up to 5 takeaway pipelines that would interconnect with existing natural gas pipelines located in the Gulf of Mexico. Gas would then be delivered to the onshore national pipeline grid for delivery to any consumption market east of the Rockies.
The project would consist of two concrete gravity base structures (GBSs) housing the LNG containment facilities, along with topside unloading and vaporization structures, living quarters, and a ship berthing system.
The terminal would be able to receive LNG carriers between 125,000 and 160,000 cubic meter capacities and unload up to 135 LNG carriers per year. LNG carrier arrival frequency would be planned to match specified terminal gas delivery rates. All marine systems, communication, navigation aids and equipment necessary to conduct safe LNG carrier operations and receiving of product during specified atmospheric and sea states would be provided at the port.
The regasification process would consist of lifting the LNG from storage tanks, pumping the cold liquid to pipeline pressure, subsequent vaporization across heat exchanging equipment and, finally, send-out through custody transfer metering to the gas pipeline network. No gas conditioning is required for the terminal since the incoming LNG would be pipeline quality.
Five offshore interconnector pipelines, ranging from 16 to 36 inches in diameter, would be constructed and would traverse a combined 65.7 nautical miles. Each pipeline would transport gas from the terminal to an existing transmission pipeline where it would deliver the gas to the onshore U.S. gas pipeline network. On average, Gulf Landing expects the terminal would vaporize and deliver 1 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd) of natural gas to the pipelines, with a peak daily send out rate of 1.2 Bcfd.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD.
Notice.
On December 19, 2003, HUD published a proposed “Guidance to Federal Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons” (LEP Guidance) as required by Executive Order 13166, that addresses efforts recipients of federal financial assistance must make to serve persons with limited English proficiency. The proposed LEP Guidance solicited public comments for a period of 30 days, providing for a comment due date of January 20, 2004. Because of the significant public interest that the proposed rule has generated, HUD is extending the public comment period by an additional 14 days.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding the proposed guidance to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410–0500. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title. Facsimile (FAX) comments are not acceptable. A copy of each communication submitted will be available for public inspection and copying between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays at the above address.
Pamela D. Walsh, Director, Program Standards Division, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 5226, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708–2904 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may access the telephone number listed in this section through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877–8339.
On December 19, 2003 (68 FR 70968), HUD published proposed “Guidance to Federal Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons.” HUD published this policy guidance to meet its responsibility under Executive Order 13166, which requires that each federal agency publish guidance to assist recipients of federal funds in meeting their responsibilities under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under Title VI, recipients of federal financial assistance are required to ensure meaningful access to their programs and activities by persons with limited English proficiency. The Department of Justice reviewed and approved HUD's proposed LEP Guidance.
HUD's proposed LEP Guidance solicited public comments for a period of 30-days, providing for a comment due date of January 20, 2004. Due to the significant level of public interest that the proposed notice has generated, HUD has decided to extend the public comment due date by an additional 14 days. The new due date for comments is provided in the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Interior.
Notice of intent.
The BLM Field Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico, intends to prepare a Resource Management Plan (RMP) with an associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument. The proposed RMP will replace the existing Rio Puerco RMP and Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Protection Plan for the area that has become the Monument. Public-scoping meetings to identify relevant issues will be announced in advance through BLM's Web site, a newsletter, and in local news media.
Public-scoping meetings will be announced through the local news media, a newsletter, and the BLM Web site (
To send written comments, and/or to have your name added to the mailing list, contact John Bristol, Project Leader, telephone 505–761–8755, or Kathy Walter, Monument Manager, telephone 505–761–8794, or write to them at the Bureau of Land Management, Albuquerque Field Office, 435 Montano Road NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107–4935 or by fax at 505–761–8911.
John Bristol, Project Manager, at (505) 761–8755 (
This document provides notice that the BLM Field Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico, intends to prepare an RMP with an associated EIS for the Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument (KKTRNM). Since the area designated as the Monument was formerly the Tent Rocks ACEC designated under the 1986 Rio Puerco RMP, this planning process will also include a review of the existing Rio Puerco RMP decisions in the context of the National Monument status.
The planning area is located in Sandoval County, New Mexico, between
The Presidential Proclamation of January 17, 2001, No. 7394, set apart and reserved for the purpose of protecting the objects specified in the Proclamation, all lands and interests in lands owned or controlled by the United States within the boundaries of the area described as the KKTRNM. The Federal land and interests in land reserved consist of approximately 4,148 acres which is the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected. The proclamation directed the Secretary of the Interior to manage the Monument through the BLM, pursuant to applicable legal authorities and in close cooperation with the Pueblo de Cochiti, and to prepare a management plan for the Monument.
The area designated as the Monument was the Tent Rocks ACEC designated under the 1986 Rio Puerco RMP and actually includes approximately 4,114 acres of public lands, after recalculation. Therefore, the planning area includes 4,114 acres of public lands, 520 acres of State land, and 760 acres of private land within the boundary of the Monument, as well as private lands immediately adjacent to the Monument, which would be considered for acquisition from willing landowners.
This will be a stand-alone RMP for the Monument, but will include decisions established in the 1986 Rio Puerco RMP (maintained and reprinted in 1992) that have been or are being implemented for this area, particularly those consistent with the provisions of the proclamation and applicable to the Tent Rocks ACEC. The KKTRNM RMP will replace the existing Rio Puerco RMP and ACEC Protection Plan for the area that has become the Monument.
The purpose of the public-scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis and EIS alternatives. These issues also guide the planning process. Comments on issues and planning criteria can be submitted in writing to the BLM at any public-scoping meeting or they may be mailed or faxed to the BLM as directed above. To be most helpful, formal scoping comments should be submitted within 15 days after the last public meeting, although scoping comments will be accepted throughout the creation of the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. The minutes and list of attendees for each scoping meeting will be available to the public and open for 30 days after the meeting to any participant who wishes to clarify the views expressed. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to withhold your name and/or address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comment. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. We will not, however, consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, are available for public inspection in their entirety.
Issues presently being considered include: (1) Land tenure adjustment and how land ownership will be incorporated into the management of the Monument; (2) how access and transportation will be managed for the purposes of the Monument; (3) how recreational activities and visitor use will be managed; (4) how ecosystem restoration will benefit the public and the Monument; and (5) how American Indian uses and traditional cultural practices will be incorporated into the management of the Monument. Other issues may be raised through the scoping process. These issues have guided the preliminary work on this plan. They are being submitted to the public for consideration and comment during the scoping process.
The following criteria have been developed to guide the consideration, analysis, and resolution of these issues, as required by FLPMA and BLM's planning regulations (43 CFR 1610). They are open for discussion during the scoping process. Several of them relate to all issues, others relate to individual issues. Planning criteria ensure that plans are tailored to the identified issues, and that unnecessary data collection and analyses are avoided. Planning criteria are based on applicable law, agency guidance, public comment, and coordination with other Federal, State, and local governments and Native American Indian Tribes.
• The plan will be completed in compliance with FLPMA and all other applicable laws. It will meet the requirements of the Proclamation to protect the objects of geological, cultural, and biological interest appertaining to the Monument.
• The Monument planning team will work cooperatively with the Pueblo de Cochiti and other Tribal Governments, State of New Mexico, county and municipal governments, other Federal agencies, and all other interest groups, agencies, and individuals.
• The plan will establish the guidance upon which the BLM will rely in managing the Monument.
• The plan will be accompanied by an EIS based on NEPA standards.
• The plan will provide opportunities to study, observe, and experience the geologic processes as well as other cultural and biological objects of interest within the Monument. It will identify opportunities and priorities for research and education related to resources for which the Monument was created, and it will describe an approach for incorporating research into management actions.
• The plan will set forth a framework for managing recreational activities and experiences consistent with the Proclamation.
• The plan will recognize valid existing rights within the Monument and review how valid existing rights are verified. The plan will also outline the process used to address applications or notices filed after completion of the plan on existing claims or other land-use authorizations.
• The management of grazing is prescribed by laws and regulations; however, the Proclamation excludes grazing from within the Monument unless it can be determined that livestock grazing can advance the purpose of the Proclamation. This determination will be made through the plan.
• The lifestyles of area residents will be recognized in the plan.
• The Monument plan will recognize the State's responsibility and authority to manage wildlife, including hunting within the Monument.
• The acquisition of state and private inholdings within the Monument and private lands contiguous to the Monument will be considered.
• The plan alternatives will address transportation, vehicular, and other types of access.
1. Issues to be resolved in the plan.
2. Issues to be resolved independently of the plan.
3. Issues beyond the scope of the plan.
In addition to the preceding issues, management questions and concerns that may be addressed in the plan include but are not limited to the following: management of culturally sensitive areas; protection and interpretation of cultural resources; use of Monument resources for scientific and educational purposes; fire and fuels management; wildlife habitat; threatened and endangered species habitat; scenic values; facilities and infrastructure needed to administer the area and provide visitor services; and an appropriate level of visitor use, since the Monument is located within a 1-hour drive of the growing major cities of Albuquerque, Rio Rancho, and Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Southwest Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will meet as indicated below.
The meeting will be held on February 20, 2004, at the Kendall Mountain Community Center, Silverton, Colorado and will begin at 9 a.m. The public comment period will be at 9:30 a.m. and 3 p.m.
The 15-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Southwest, Colorado. Planned agenda topics include:
All meetings are open to the public. The public can make oral statements to the Council at 9:30 a.m. and 3 p.m. or written statements may be submitted for the Council's consideration. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Summary minutes for the Council Meeting will be maintained in the Western Slope Center Office (BLM), 2465 S. Townsend, Montrose, Colorado 81401, and will be available for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours within thirty (30) days following the meeting.
San Juan Public Lands Center, 15 Burnett Court, Durango, Colorado 81301. Phone (970) 385–1290.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Intent and Notice of Realty Action.
This notice provides for two related proposals, one a proposed plan amendment and the other a proposed direct sale. The proposed plan amendment involves about 260 acres of Federal land. The proposed direct sale involves about 100 acres of the Federal land being considered in the proposed plan amendment.
The Bureau of Land Management must receive your comments on or before March 8, 2004 at the address listed below.
Please send your written comments to the Bureau of Land Management, Redding Field Office, 355 Hemsted Drive, Redding, CA 96002, attention Ilene Emry. All submissions from organizations or businesses will be made available for public inspection in their entirety. Individuals may request confidentiality with respect to their name, address, and phone number. If you wish to have your name or street address withheld from public review, or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, the first line of the comment should start with the words “CONFIDENTIALITY REQUEST” in uppercase letters in order for BLM to comply with your request. Such request will be honored to the extent allowed by law. Comment contents will not be kept confidential.
Ilene Emry, Redding Field Office; 530–224–2100.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to amend the Redding Resource Management Plan (RMP) to consider disposal of up to 260 acres of public land. The affected public lands are located in the Interlakes Special Recreation Management Area north of Redding, California and are described as:
Total Plan Amendment Acres: approximately 260.0.
If the BLM determines during consideration of the proposed plan amendment that these lands are suitable for disposal, then BLM proposes to offer about 100 acres of the lands for direct sale under section 203 and 209 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2750, 43 U.S.C. 1713). The proposed sale would be at not less than the estimated fair market value of $69,615 to the Redding Gun Club, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, consistent with 43 CFR 2711.3–3(a)(1) for development of a regional firing range. The area under consideration for direct sale has the following legal description:
Total Direct Sale Acres: approximately 100 acres.
The BLM may consider disposal of a portion or all of the remaining 160 acres by direct sale to the Redding Gun Club in the future if it is determined to be needed for the regional firing range. An additional environmental analysis and public notification will be completed at that time. In July 2002, the BLM provided an opportunity to comment on an environmental assessment (EA) for a direct sale involving a portion of the area in the proposed plan amendment. The BLM will incorporate applicable issues raised and comments received during the July 2002 comment period in this plan amendment process. Further public comment will also be accepted on the draft plan amendment and environmental assessment developed in connection with this NOI/NORA. Several relevant planning/NEPA documents concerning this action are available on request from the Redding Field Office. Some of the preliminary issues and concerns identified by BLM personnel, other agencies, and individuals, include fair market value, noise, increased traffic, and public safety. Disciplines involved in the planning process will include specialists with expertise in wildlife management, minerals and geology, outdoor recreation, archaeology, lands and realty, and botany. The alternative to the proposed action will be the No Action Alternative.
Since 1986, the Redding BLM Field Office has cooperated with local planning agencies, and groups to provide a location for a regional firing range. The proposed sale parcel is well suited for use as a firing range. Urban encroachment has resulted in the closure of sites traditionally used for shooting in the Redding area. Direct sale would allow for the development of a regional firing range and would serve important public objectives, consistent with 43 CFR 2710.0–3(a)(2).
BLM has determined that the parcel contains no mineral values; therefore, mineral interests may be conveyed simultaneously. The sale would include both the surface and mineral estates. If the RMP amendment proposed in this notice is completed, the conveyance would be in compliance and consistent with the Redding Resource Management Plan, dated July 27, 2003, as amended, and would be in the public interest.
This notice terminates the temporary segregation from exchange of those lands described for the direct sale, effective January 22, 2004. The land described for the direct sale is hereby segregated from appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws, pending the direct sale or October 18, 2004, whichever occurs first.
The patent, if issued, would be subject to valid existing rights and contain the following reservations:
1. Excepting and reserving to the United States, a right-of-way for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Act of August 30, 1890, 43 U.S.C. 945.
2. A right-of-way reservation (CA 45206), as amended, to the BLM for administrative access across existing roads on the public land in this sale.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
Notice and request for comments.
The National Park Service (NPS) Social Science Program is considering submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for clearance of a renewed program of social science surveys of the public related to the mission of the NPS. The NPS is publishing this notice to inform the public of this program and to request comments on the program.
Since many of the NPS surveys are similar in terms of the populations being surveyed, the types of questions being asked, and research methodologies, the NPS proposed to OMB and received clearance for a program of approval for NPS-sponsored public surveys (OMB# 1024–0224 exp. 8/31/2001; three-year extension granted in September 2001, exp. 9/30/2004). The program presented and alternative approach to complying with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). In the five years since the NPS received clearance for the program of expedited approval, 193 public surveys have been conducted in units of the National Park System. The benefits of this program have been significant to the NPS, Department of the Interior (DOI), OMB, NPS cooperators, and the public. Significant time and cost savings have been incurred. Expedited approval was typically granted in 45 days or less from the date the Principal Investigator first submitted a survey package for review. This is a significant reduction over the approximate 6 months involved in the standard OMB approval process. It is estimated that the expedited approval process saved a total of 870 months in Fiscal Years 1999–2003. In five years, the expedited approval process has accounted for a cost savings to the federal government and PIs estimated at $348,001. The initial program included surveys of park visitors. The program renewed in September 2001 included surveys of park visitors, potential park visitors, and residents and communities near parks. The current extension request proposes to expand the program to include surveys of NPS management partners and recipients of NPS agency technical assistance.
Under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5 CFR part 1320, Reporting and Record Keeping Requirements, the National Park Service is soliciting comments on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NPS, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the NPS estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology.
Public comments will be accepted on or before 60 days from the date of publication in the
Dr. James H. Gramann, Visiting Chief Social Scientist, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW., (3127), Washington, DC 20240.
Dr. James H. Gramann. Voice: 202–513–7189, Fax: 202–371–2131, Email:
Request for Clearance of a Three Year Program of Collections of Information: Programmatic Approval of NPS-Sponsored Public Surveys.
National Park Service.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Park Service (NPS) is announcing its intention to request an extension of a currently approved collection of information (OMB# 1024–0233) for NPS Leasing Regulations; 36 CFR part 18, concerning the leasing of historic properties as authorized by law.
Comments on this notice must be received no later than March 22, 2004.
Contact Cynthia Orlando, Concession Program Manager, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW., (2410), Washington, DC 20240, or 202/513–7144.
Send comments on (1) the need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. Please refer to OMB control number 1024–0233 in all correspondence. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Copies of the information collection can be obtained from Cynthia L. Orlando, Concession Program Manager, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., (2410), Washington, DC 20240.
Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91–190, as amended) and the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations, the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, has prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed general management plan (GMP) for Fort Vancouver National Historic Site located in the city of Vancouver, Washington. This GMP describes and analyzes “action” alternatives responsive to issues and concerns voiced during the public scoping process (as well as NPS conservation planning requirements). These alternatives address visitor use and the preservation of the cultural and natural resources that provide the environment in which the Hudson's Bay Company story is presented to the public. Alternative A constitutes the No Action alternative and assumes that existing programming, facilities, staffing, and funding would generally continue at their current levels. Alternative B, the agency preferred alternative, expands opportunities for the visitor to appreciate the broad sense of history that occurred at Fort Vancouver and its place in Northwest history. Alternative C proposes full reconstruction within the Fort and additional reconstruction or delineation elsewhere within the National Historic Site (NHS). The environmental consequences of all the alternatives, and mitigation strategies, are identified, compared, and analyzed in the EIS—based on this information, Alternative B was deemed to be the “environmentally preferred” alternative.
The public review period ended on February 8, 2003. Resulting from the opportunity for public comment, a total of 118 pieces of written correspondence were received, which included letters from agencies, organizations, and individuals, newsletter mail-back response forms, and electronically mailed responses through the Internet from the park website. In addition, a total of 65 people signed in at the public meetings (and 185 comments were recorded). Written comments were received from the following locations in the Pacific Northwest: 57 from Vancouver, Washington, 21 from Portland, Oregon, 5 from Oregon City, Oregon, 12 from other locations in Washington State, 7 from other locations in Oregon State, and 2 from Idaho. A total of 14 letters arrived from California, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Arizona, Maryland, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington, DC.
Throughout the overall conservation planning and environmental impact analysis process, consultations were held with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington State Historic Preservation Office, and the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation. Except for the Washington State Historic Preservation Office, no written comments were received from these four agencies. Three tribes prepared written comments; the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon.
The following elements of the proposed plan received the most comment: Village and Waterfront expansion, reconstruction, Research and Education Center, living history, Reserve visitor center, land bridge connection, adding the McLoughlin House NHS as a unit of Fort Vancouver NHS, East Fifth Street closure, relationship with Pearson Field, parking, food concessions, HBC cemetery, and staffing and funding. All letters are reproduced in the final EIS
In addition to corrections and editorial changes, two elements of the proposed plan were modified based on public comment. Neither of these two changes constitutes an impairment of park resources or a significant impact of a singular or cumulative nature. The first relates to the proposed closure of East Fifth Street. East Fifth Street will remain open to public vehicular use. As mentioned in the draft EIS
The second change relates to the temporary parking lot at the Fort. The action proposed in the draft EIS/GMP was to remove this parking lot completely and to construct a new
Alternative A is the no-action alternative and assumes that existing conditions, including programming, facilities, staffing, and funding, would generally continue at their current levels. This alternative would include fulfilling the existing commitments and relationships with the Reserve. No new substantial facility or program initiatives would be proposed under this alternative. The NHS would continue to work with the City of Vancouver to extend the City's proposed Discovery Historic Loop Trail through the Village of the NHS and along East Fifth Street. In cooperation with the City of Vancouver and Washington Department of Transportation, a pedestrian overpass would be built over State Route 14 and the railroad to connect the Fort Vancouver Waterfront and the City's Old Apple Tree Park to link the Fort and HBC Village. The current NHS visitor center would be retained in its current configuration and location, as would the current Vancouver National Historic Reserve visitor center situated in the historic General O.O. Howard House at the Vancouver Barracks. In addition, this alternative provided for technical assistance to the McLoughlin House NHS in Oregon City, Oregon (which was an affiliated unit of the National Park System). This no longer applies because on July 29, 2003 President Bush signed P. L. 108–63 (known also as H.R. 733), which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire the McLoughlin House NHS for inclusion in Fort Vancouver NHS.
Alternative B constitutes the Preferred Alternative, and this proposed course of action has also been determined to be the “environmentally preferred” alternative. Implementing this alternative would result in expanded opportunities for the visitor to appreciate the broad sense of history that occurred at Fort Vancouver and its place in Northwest history. Work to reconstruct nine Hudson's Bay Company structures within the fort palisade, and two at the Village, would be undertaken. A research and education center would be developed within the fort. Interpretive components would be added including wayside exhibits and delineation of structures in certain locations. Much of the historic landscape would be restored. The NPS would develop an interpretive area at the Waterfront by partially reconstructing the Salmon Store as an interpretive shed, and delineating several other historic Hudson's Bay Company structures. The original location of the wharf would be simulated and the historic pond delineated with plants. A portion of Columbia Way would be realigned to better accommodate visitor circulation and interpretation.
In cooperation with the City of Vancouver and the Washington Department of Transportation, the pedestrian overpass would be widened as a land bridge to allow for interpretation devices and vegetation. A local transit authority, in cooperation with NPS and other Reserve Partners, would implement a shuttle system to facilitate visitation. Other cooperative sharing would include administrative, maintenance, and visitor facilities with Reserve Partners. The NPS would recommend that one of the four buildings fronting the historic Parade Ground as determined excess by the Secretary of the Army be renovated as the joint administrative headquarters for the park and other Reserve offices. Maximum use would be made of existing structures including renovation of the existing Fort Vancouver visitor center as the Vancouver National Historic Reserve visitor center jointly managed by the Reserve Partners including the NPS.
Implementation of this alternative would result in development of additional educational outreach programs and new research facilities related to the Hudson's Bay Company and early U.S. Army period. This alternative recommends that the McLoughlin House National Historic Site in Oregon City, Oregon become a unit of Fort Vancouver NHS and be managed by Fort Vancouver National Historic Site staff. As noted above, legislation passed on July 29, 2003 authorized the Secretary of the Interior to acquire this site for inclusion in Fort Vancouver NHS.
Alternative C contains many of the same actions as the Preferred Alternative, but key differences include the following: Full reconstruction within the fort palisade, along with the reconstruction of the two historic School Houses and a barn to the north of the Fort. Additional delineation of structures would occur at the Waterfront and the Village. The historic Salmon Store would be reconstructed along the Columbia River shoreline, as would the historic wharf and other waterfront features. An ethno botanical garden would be constructed to interpret the local historic uses of native plants. An opening in the railroad berm would be created to visually link the Fort to the Waterfront. To facilitate visitor use and interpretation, a portion of Columbia Way would be closed to vehicular traffic in cooperation with the City of Vancouver. The current NHS visitor center would be renovated and retained for more detailed interpretation concerning Fort Vancouver, while a new location would be sought for a joint Vancouver National Historic Reserve visitor facility to provide the public with information and orientation to all the Reserve stories and venues. The location for this facility is yet to be determined, but priority would be given to rehabilitation of an historic structure within the Vancouver Barracks Historic District that is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The research and education center would be located within the Vancouver Barracks portion of the Reserve.
National Park Service, Interior.
Availability of draft environmental impact statement.
Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area Management Plan. The Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area Act of 2000 (Act) requires the Lackawanna Heritage Valley Authority, with guidance from the NPS, to prepare a Management Plan for the Lackawanna Heritage Valley. The Management Plan is expected to: (A) Take into consideration State, county, and local plans; (B) involve residents, public agencies, and private organizations working in the Heritage Area; (C) include actions to be undertaken by units of government and private organizations to protect the resources of the Heritage Area and specify the existing and potential sources of funding available to protect, manage, and develop the Heritage Area; (D) develop an inventory of the resources contained in the Heritage Area, including a list of any property in the Heritage Area that is related to the purposes of the Heritage Area and that should be preserved, restored, managed, developed, or maintained because of its historical, cultural, natural, recreational, or scenic significance; (E) recommend policies for resource management that considers and details application of appropriate land and water management techniques, including the development of intergovernmental cooperative agreements to protect the historical, cultural, natural, and recreational resources of the Heritage Area in a manner that is consistent with the support of appropriate and compatible economic viability; (F) establish a program for implementation of the management plan by the management entity, that includes: (i) Plans for restoration and construction, and (ii) specific commitments of the partners for the first 5 years of operation; (G) perform an analysis of ways in which local, State, and Federal programs may best be coordinated to protect the heritage resources; and (H) develop an interpretation plan for the Heritage Area.
The study area, designated as the Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area, includes all or parts of the counties of: Lackawanna, Luzerne, Wayne, and Susquehanna County, in northeastern Pennsylvania as associated with the Lackawanna River corridor.
The NPS maintains one park site within the region: Steamtown National Historic Site in Scranton. Otherwise the majority of land is non-federal and the NPS assumes a management role only within its park units. Instead, conservation, interpretation and other activities are managed by partnerships among Federal, State, and local governments and private nonprofit organizations. The Lackawanna Heritage Valley Authority manages the national heritage area. The NPS has been authorized by Congress to provide technical and financial assistance for a limited period. The Act prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from providing any grant or other assistance pursuant to the Act after September 30, 2012.
The DEIS will remain on Public Review for sixty days from the publication of the notice in the
Peter Samuel, Project Leader, Philadelphia Support Office, National Park Service, 200 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106,
If you correspond using the internet, please include your name and return address in your e-mail message. Our practice is 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 the record, which we will honor to the extent 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. However, we will not consider anonymous 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 inspection in their entirety.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) (40 CFR 1503.1) and Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1506.6), the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service will prepare an exotic plant management plan/environmental impact statement (Plan/EIS). The Plan/EIS will be used to guide the management and control of exotic plants and restoration of native plant communities in nine park units in South Florida and the Caribbean. The nine park units are Big Cypress National
To determine the scope of issues to be addressed in the plan and EIS and to identify significant issues related to the management and control of exotic plants in the nine park units, the National Park Service will conduct public scoping meetings in South Florida and the Caribbean. Representatives of the National Park Service will be available to discuss issues, resource concerns, and the planning process at each of the public meetings. When public scoping meetings have been scheduled, their locations, dates, and times will be published in local newspapers.
Any comments or requests for information should be addressed to Sandra Hamilton, National Park Service, Environmental Quality Division, Academy Place, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, Colorado 80225. Comments may also be submitted to the following email address:
Sandra Hamilton, at (303) 969–2068. Email:
In the United States, infestations of exotic plants are second only to land use changes as the cause of habitat loss and subsequent species endangerment. The threat of exotic species has grave implications for the preservation of natural and cultural resources throughout the National Park System. It is estimated that exotic plants infest approximately 1.5 million acres in the national park system, with some 400,000 acres of exotic plants within park units in Florida alone.
The presence and spread of exotic plants in park units in South Florida and the Caribbean threaten park natural and cultural resources. Exotic plant species threaten native plant communities, alter native habitat for plants and wildlife including threatened and endangered species, and disrupt natural processes, such as fire regime and hydrology. Cultural landscapes are altered by the presence of exotic plants, and excessive growth can threaten the integrity of historic or cultural structures. The National Park Service recognizes that to manage and control the spread of exotic plants more effectively, it is necessary to use a collaborative approach between park units, as commonalities exist between the units that lend themselves to broad management strategies.
The purpose of the Plan/EIS is to provide a programmatic framework for the nine South Florida and Caribbean parks:
• To manage and control exotic plants;
• To provide for the restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded;
• To protect park resources and values from adverse impacts resulting from the presence of exotic plants and control activities; and
• To provide consistency in planning for exotic plant management among the participating parks.
Our practice is to make the public comments we receive in response to planning documents, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. 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 inspection in their entirety. However, individual respondents may request that we withhold their names and addresses from the public record, and we will honor such requests to the extent allowed by law. If you wish to withhold your name and/or address, you must state that request prominently at the beginning of your comment. Anonymous comments will not be considered.
The draft and final Plan/EIS will be made available to all known interested parties and appropriate agencies. Full public participation by federal, state, and local agencies as well as other concerned organizations and private citizens is invited throughout the preparation process of this document.
The responsible official for this Plan/EIS is Patricia A. Hooks, Acting Regional Director, Southeast Region, National Park Service, 100 Alabama Street SW., 1924 Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
National Park Service.
Notice.
This notice sets forth the date of the February 19, 2004 meeting of the Gettysburg National Military Park Advisory Commission.
The public meeting will be held on February 19, 2004 from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Cyclorama Auditorium, 125 Taneytown Road, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325.
The February 19, 2004 meeting will consist of the nomination of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson for the 2004 year, Sub-Committee Reports from the Historical, Executive, and Interpretive Committees; Federal Consistency Reports Within the Gettysburg Battlefield Historic District; Operational Updates on Park Activities which consists of an update on Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation and National Park Service activities related to the new Visitor Center/Museum Complex, the Gettysburg Borough Interpretive Plan which will consist of updates on the Wills House and the Train Station; Transportation which consists of the National Park Service and the Gettysburg Borough working on the shuttle system; Update on land acquisition within the park boundary or in the historic district; and the Citizens Open Forum where the public can make comments and ask questions on any park activity.
John A. Latschar, Superintendent, Gettysburg National Military Park, 97 Taneytown Road, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325.
The meeting will be open to the public. Any member of the public may file with the Commission a written statement concerning agenda items. The statement should be addressed to the Gettysburg National Military Park Advisory Commission, 97 Taneytown Road, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325.
National Park Service, Interior.
Announcement of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park Subsistence Resource Commission (SRC) meeting.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act that a meeting of the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park Subsistence Resource Commissions will be held at Slana, Alaska. The purpose of the meeting will be to continue work on currently authorized and proposed National Park Service subsistence hunting program recommendations including other related subsistence management issues. The meeting will be open to the public. Any person may file with the Commission a written statement concerning the matters to be discussed.
The Subsistence Resource Commission is authorized under Title VIII, section 808, of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Pub. L. 96–487, and operates in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The meeting dates are:
1. February 11, 2004, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Slana League Building, Slana, Alaska.
2. February 12, 2004, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Slana League Building, Slana, Alaska.
In accordance with 41 CFR 102–3.150, we may provide less than 15 days notice in the
Gary Candelaria, Superintendent, or Barbara Cellarius, Subsistence Coordinator, at Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, P.O. Box 439, Copper Center, AK 99573, telephone (907) 822–5234.
Notice of this meeting will be published in local newspapers and announced on local radio stations prior to the meeting dates. Locations and dates may need to be changed based on weather or local circumstances.
The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
1. Call to order (SRC Chair).
2. SRC roll call and confirmation of quorum.
3. SRC Chair and Superintendent's welcome and introductions.
4. Review and adopt agenda.
5. Review and adopt minutes of September 25, 2003 meeting.
6. Review commission purpose.
7. Status of membership.
8. Election of Chair and Vice Chair.
9. Superintendent's report.
10. Wrangell-St. Elias NP&P staff report.
11. Review new proposals to change wildlife regulations.
12. Public and agency comments.
13. Work session (comment on issues, develop new recommendations, prepare letters).
14. Set time and place of next SRC meeting.
15. Adjournment.
Draft minutes of the meeting will be available for public inspection approximately six weeks after the meeting from the Superintendent, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, at the above address.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to adopt in part the initial determination (“ID”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) on December 16, 2003, thereby denying complainant's motion for temporary relief in the above-captioned investigation.
Timothy P. Monaghan, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–205–3152. Copies of the Commission order, the public version of the Commission opinion in support thereof, the public version of the 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 instituted this investigation on August 18, 2003, based upon a complaint filed by Tilia, Inc. and Tilia International (collectively, “Tilia”). 68 FR 49521–522. At the same time, the Commission provisionally accepted a motion for temporary relief filed by Tilia. In its complaint, Tilia alleges that the accused imported products infringe claims 3, 4, 6, 24–25, and 34 of U.S. Patent No. 4,941,310 (“the ‘310 patent”). The temporary relief motion was limited to claim 34 of the ’310 patent. The notice of investigation named Applica, Inc.; Applica Consumer Products, Inc.; ZeroPack Co., Ltd.; The Holmes Group, Inc.; and The Rival Company as respondents.
On August 18, 2003, the temporary relief proceedings were designated “more complicated” by the ALJ, thereby extending the statutory deadline for issuance by the Commission of a decision on the motion for temporary relief from 90 to 150 days from the date of institution,
The evidentiary hearing on temporary relief was conducted on September 30, October 1, and October 7, 2003. On December 16, 2003, the ALJ issued an ID denying complainant's motion for temporary relief. On December 29, 2003, all parties filed written comments concerning the ID. Responses to the comments were filed on December 31, 2003. Complainant Tilia also requested oral argument before the Commission on the temporary relief ID.
Having examined the relevant record in this investigation, including Order No. 5, the ID, the written comments on Order No. 5 and the ID, and the replies thereto, the Commission determined to adopt the ID, except that it determined to set aside the ALJ's finding that the Taunton patent “inherently” discloses the trough means of claim 34 of the ‘310 patent, to set aside the ALJ's finding that there is a reasonable likelihood of
This action is taken under the authority of section 337(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337(e)), and section 210.66 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.66.
By order of the Commission.
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of each ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Department of Labor. To obtain documentation, contact Ira Mills on 202–693–4122 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail:
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 202–395–7316 (this is not a toll-free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of each ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Department of Labor. To obtain documentation, contact Ira Mills on 202–693–4122 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail:
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the 'Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 202–395–7316 (this is not a toll-free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Title 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4) provides that Notice of the Appointment of an individual to serve as a member of the Performance Review Board of the Senior Executive Service shall be published in the
The following individuals are hereby appointed to a three-year term on the Department's Performance Review Board:
Mr. David LeDoux, Director, Office of Executive Resources and Personnel Security, Room C5508, U.S. Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone: (202) 693–7605.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment Standards Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act Forms (EE–1, EE–2, EE–3, EE–4, EE–7, EE–8, EE–9, EE–20). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this Notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before March 22, 2004.
Ms. Hazel M. Bell, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room S–3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693–0418, fax (202) 693–1451, Email
The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) administers the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA), 42 U.S.C. 7384
The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The Department of Labor seeks approval for the extension in order to carry out its responsibility to determine a claimant's eligibility for compensation under the EEOICPA.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Labor.
Notice of affirmative decisions issued by the Administrators for Coal Mine Safety and Health and Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health on petitions for modification of the application of mandatory safety standards.
Under section 101 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) may allow the modification of the application of a mandatory safety standard to a mine if the Secretary determines either that an alternate method exists at a specific mine that will guarantee no less protection for the miners affected than that provided by the standard, or that the application of the standard at a specific mine will result in a diminution of safety to the affected miners.
Final decisions on these petitions are based upon the petitioner's statements, comments and information submitted by interested persons, and a field investigation of the conditions at the mine. MSHA, as designee of the Secretary, has granted or partially granted the requests for modification listed below. In some instances, the decisions are conditioned upon compliance with stipulations stated in the decision. The term FR Notice appears in the list of affirmative decisions below. The term refers to the
Petitions and copies of the final decisions are available for examination by the public in the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209. For further information contact Barbara Barron at 202–693–9447.
National Archives and Records Administration.
Notice of guidance; correction.
This document corrects the preamble to a notice published in the
Comments must be submitted on or before March 12, 2004. NARA will review all comments and will determine what modifications, if any, to this policy guidance are necessary.
Comments must be sent to Regulation Comments Desk (NPOL), Room 4100, Policy and Communications Staff, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740–6001. They may be faxed to (301) 837–0319. Electronic comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov. You may also comment via email to
Diane Dimkoff at telephone number (301) 837–1659. Arrangements to receive the policy in an alternative format may be made by contacting the named individual.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92–463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Leadership Initiatives Advisory Panel, AccessAbility section, will be held by teleconference from 2:30 p.m.–4 p.m. on Wednesday, February 4, 2004, from Room 724 at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506.
This meeting is for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of April 30, 2003, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Panel Coordinator, National Endowment for
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering the issuance of an order under 10 CFR 50.80 approving the transfer of Facility Operating License No. DPR–18 for the R.E Ginna Nuclear Plant (Ginna) currently held by Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E), as owner and licensed operator of Ginna. The transfer would be to R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC (Ginna LLC). The Commission is also considering amending the license for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer.
According to a December 16, 2003, application for approval filed by RG&E and Constellation Generation Group, LLC, Ginna LLC 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 Ginna. No physical changes to the Ginna facility or operational changes are being proposed in the application. However, the license transfer is contingent upon NRC approval of the pending application to renew the operating license for Ginna for an additional 20 years beyond the current license expiration date of September 18, 2009.
The proposed amendment would replace references to RG&E in the license with references to Ginna LLC to reflect the new owner and make any other changes necessary to reflect the proposed transfer.
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 11, 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 James M. Petro, Counsel for Constellation Energy Group, 750 East Pratt Street, 5th Floor, Legal Department, Baltimore, MD 21201, (410) 783–3303, 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 23, 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 16, 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 Access and Management System's
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 15th day of January 2004.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact.
Rick Weller, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T8–A33, Washington DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–7287 and e-mail
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received, by letter dated June 24, 1998, a request from Power Resources Inc. (PRI) to amend Source Materials License SUA–1511 for the Highland Uranium Project to allow the operation of a satellite in situ leach uranium recovery facility at the Gas Hills Project site located in Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming. PRI subsequently acquired the operating Smith Ranch in situ leach uranium recovery facility located adjacent to the Highland Uranium Project and, in August 2003, the Highland license (SUA–1511) was integrated into the Smith Ranch Source Materials License SUA–1548. As such, PRI's request to amend the Highland license for the Gas Hills Project became a request to amend the Smith Ranch license (SUA–1548) upon the combination of the two licenses for these contiguous facilities.
Pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51 (Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions), the NRC has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the proposed operation of the Gas Hills Project satellite in situ leach uranium recovery facility. Based on this evaluation, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate for the proposed licensing action.
The EA was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the proposed operation of the Gas Hills Project satellite in situ leach uranium recovery facility. In the conduct of its evaluation, the NRC considered the following: (1) PRI's license amendment application, as supplemented and revised, (2) information contained in prior environmental evaluations of uranium recovery activities in the Gas Hills Uranium District of Wyoming, and (3) information derived from NRC site visits to the Gas Hills Project site and from communications with PRI, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, the Wyoming State Geological Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. In preparing the EA, the NRC evaluated the environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation, reclamation, and decommissioning of the Gas Hills Project, including the impacts to air quality, local soils, surface water, groundwater, cultural resources, and threatened and endangered species. Additionally, the NRC evaluated the potential impacts to members of the public from transportation activities and from releases of radioactive materials to the environment and disposal of radioactive wastes. The results of the staff's evaluation are documented in an EA which is available electronically for public inspection or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). The safety aspects of the Gas Hills Project are discussed separately in a Safety Evaluation Report that will accompany the agency's final licensing action on PRI's request to amend Source Materials License SUA–1548.
Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC has prepared the EA, summarized above, concerning the proposed operation of the Gas Hills Project satellite in situ leach uranium recovery facility. On the basis of the EA, the NRC has concluded that this licensing action would not have any significant effect on the quality of the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has concluded that the approval of the Gas Hills Project will not cause any significant impacts on the environment and is protective of human health. The basis for this conclusion is supported by the following findings. The NRC has determined that the Gas Hills Project will not result in any adverse impacts to regional surface water or groundwater. A groundwater monitoring program will be established to detect both horizontal and vertical excursions of the circulating groundwater used to leach uranium from the subsurface ore bodies. Any groundwater impacted by these uranium recovery operations will be restored to baseline water quality conditions or, as a minimum, to the pre-mining Wyoming class-of-use water quality standards. All radioactive wastes generated by facility operations will be disposed offsite at a licensed disposal site. Evaporation ponds constructed for the temporary storage of process waste streams will be provided with both primary and secondary liners and leakage detection and collection capability. Standard operating procedures will be established for all operational process activities involving radioactive materials that are handled, processed, or stored. Radiological effluents from the operation of the well-field, ion exchange, and water treatment facilities will be a small fraction of regulatory limits, and an environmental and effluent monitoring program will monitor all releases. A radiation protection program will be established to ensure that exposures will be kept as low as is reasonably achievable.
The EA for this proposed action as well as the licensee's request, as supplemented and revised, are available electronically for public inspection in the NRC's Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
OPIC's Sunshine Act notice of its annual public hearing was published in the
Information on the hearing cancellation may be obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336–8438, via facsimile at (202) 218–0136, or via e-mail at
OPIC's Sunshine Act notice of its public hearing was published in the
Information on the hearing cancellation may be obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336–8438, via facsimile at (202) 218–0136, or via e-mail at
Saga Communications, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Issuer”), has filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Issuer approved resolutions on December 12, 2003 to withdraw the Issuer's Security from listing on the Amex and to list the Security on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE”). The Board states that it is taking such action in order to avoid the direct and indirect costs and the division of the market resulting from dual listing on the Amex and NYSE. In addition, the Board determined that it is in the best interest of the Issuer to list its Security on the NYSE. The Issuer states that it currently expects its Security to be approved for listing on the NYSE on or about January 20, 2004.
The Issuer stated in its application that it has met the requirements of Amex Rule 18 by complying with all applicable laws in the State of Delaware, in which it is incorporated, and with the Amex's rules governing an issuer's voluntary withdrawal of a security from listing and registration.
The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the Securities from listing on the Amex and from registration under section 12(b) of the Act
Any interested person may, on or before February 9, 2004, submit by letter to the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549–0609, facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of the Amex and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Telefonica del Peru S.A.A., a Republic of Peru corporation (“Issuer”), has filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Issuer stated in its application that it has complied with all applicable laws in effect in the jurisdiction of the Republic of Peru, in which it is incorporated, and with the NYSE's rules governing an issuer's voluntary withdrawal of a security from listing and registration. The Issuer stated in its application that it has met the requirements of the NYSE rules governing an issuer's voluntary withdrawal of a security from listing and registration.
The Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Issuer approved a resolution on December 17, 2003 to withdraw the Issuer's Security from listing on the NYSE. The Board stated that the following reasons factored into its decision to withdraw the Issuer's Security from the Exchange: (i) The issuer has few record holders (as of December 29, 2003, the Issuer had 128 holders of record; (ii) the Issuer's Security has a low trading volume (a monthly average of 164,117 during the 2-year period ended December 31, 2003 and an average daily trading volume of less than 0.5% of the total outstanding Security during the same period; (iii) the Issuer has a limited United States nexus with no assets, operating or employees in the U.S. and a controlling non-U.S. shareholder that beneficially owns approximately 97% of the Issuer's capital stock and, as a result, no longer seeks access to U.S. equity markets as a stand-alone entity; (iv) an alternative trading market already exists for the class B shares underlying the Issuer's Security, which currently trade on the Issuer's home stock exchange—the Lima Stock Exchange; (v) holders of the Security and the investing public were informed in 2000 that the Issuer's Security could be delisted voluntarily from the NYSE following consummation of the tender offer by the Issuer's controlling shareholder for the remaining Security and underlying class B shares it did not already own; and (vi) the Issuer believes that the ongoing fees and expenses, including the listing fees, investor relations costs, annual report preparation and distribution expenses and related management time, associated with the continued NYSE listing is unduly burdensome in comparison to the benefits of continued listing.
The Issuer's application relates solely to the Security's withdrawal from listing on the NYSE and from registration under section 12(b) of the Act
Any interested person may, on or before February 9, 2004, submit by letter to the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549–0609, facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of the NYSE and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
As a result of the President's major disaster declaration on January 13, 2004, I find that San Luis Obispo County in the State of California constitutes a disaster area due to damages caused by an earthquake occurring on December 22, 2003, and continuing. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on March 15, 2004 and for economic injury until the close of business on October 13, 2004 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations:
In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in the following contiguous counties may be filed until the specified date at the above location: Kern, Kings, Monterey and Santa Barbara in the State of California.
The interest rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 356202 and for economic injury the number is 9Z0900.
Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 [79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459], Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 [112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, 202/619–5997, and the address is United States Department of State, SA–44, Room 700, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547–0001.
The Shipping Coordinating Committee (SHC) will conduct an open meeting at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, February 3, 2004, in Room 6319 of the United States Coast Guard Headquarters Building, 2100 2nd Street SW., Washington, DC 20593–0001. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the 47th session of the Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment (DE) to be held at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Headquarters in London, England from February 25th to March 5th, 2004.
The primary matters to be considered include:
Hard copies of documents associated with the 47th session of DE will be available at this meeting. To request further copies of documents please write to the address provided below.
Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. Interested persons may seek information by writing to Mr. Wayne Lundy, Commandant (G–MSE–3), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Room 1300, Washington, DC 20593–0001 or by calling (202) 267–0024.
The Shipping Coordinating Committee (SHC) will conduct an open meeting at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, February 3, 2004, in Room 2415 of the United States Coast Guard Headquarters Building, 2100 2nd Street SW., Washington, DC, 20593–0001. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the Diplomatic Conference on Ballast Water Management for Ships by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) to be held at IMO Headquarters in London, England from February 9th to 13th, 2004.
The primary matters to be considered include:
Please note that hard copies of documents associated with Diplomatic Conference will not be available at this meeting. Documents will be available in Adobe Acrobat format on CD–ROM. To requests documents please write to the address provided below, or request documents via the following Internet link:
Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. Interested persons may seek information by writing to Ensign Mary Stewart, Commandant (G–MSO–4), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Room 1600, Washington, DC 20593–0001 or by calling (202) 267–2079.
On February 4, 2003, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia changed its name to Serbia and Montenegro.
On February 4, 2003, the Parliament of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia voted to adopt a new constitution establishing the state union of Serbia and Montenegro. On February 7, 2003, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names confirmed the following forms for official usage:
The Serbian form of the name (Srbija i Crna Gora) is taken from the text of the Constitutional Charter in that language. The generic term used in the Charter, drzavna zajednica (literally “state union”) is not considered part of the state title. Therefore, both the short form and the long form of this independent state is Serbia and Montenegro.
The FIPS 10 geopolitical code remains as it was under the previous name, YI.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of availability of the Record of Decision (ROD).
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the construction of a new freeway connection between the existing Milan Beltway and the urbanized area north of Rock River in Moline, Illinois for the purpose of providing additional transportation capacity over the Rock River and to avoid the need to reconstruct IL 5 (Blackhawk Road) through Black Hawk State Historic Site. As a cooperating agency to the EIS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) coordinated with FWHA and IDOT the design alternatives for the proposed interchange at the Milan Beltway—Airport Road intersection. The current Milan Beltway is approximately 2,700 feet from the west end of Runway 9–27 at the Quad City International Airport. With this Record of Decision, the FAA is announcing its approval of a release of land grant obligations over 14.380 acres of airport property. FAA's decision for its action considered the environmental impacts of the proposed project and the alternatives discussed in the EIS.
Bobb A. Beauchamp, Federal Aviation Administration, Chicago Airports District Office, Environmental Program Manager, 2300 E. Devon Ave., Suite 320, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018, telephone (847) 294–7364, e-mail
FHWA was the lead agency for the Project EIS (FHWA–IL–EIS–93–04–F). FAA accepted FHWA's May 4, 1988 invitation for cooperating agency status in preparing the EIS. After an independent review of the Final EIS, FAA concluded that its comments and suggestions were addressed in the Final EIS. The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that the Record of Decision (ROD) approving the release of the airport's land grant obligations for the property identified in the Final EIS is available to anyone upon request. Any person may obtain a copy of FAA's ROD by submitting a request to the FAA contact identified above.
FHWA signed its ROD for the project on July 9, 2003, in which it selected as part of its preferred alternative a grade separation and combination cloverleaf/diamond type interchange at the present Milan Beltway—Airport Road intersection. This interchange design requires the sale of 14.380 acres of airport property to IDOT, including a 3.9-acre encroachment into the runway protection zone (RPZ) for Runway 9 at Quad City International Airport. The airport is required to seek a release from Federal obligations prior to the sale of these lands. The Quad City International Airport does not require these lands for airport use. FHWA's ROD included several commitments to FAA and the Metropolitan Airport Authority of Rock Island County, re-stated in FAA's ROD, to ensure that the project will not pose a hazard to air navigation.
FAA's ROD examines the build alternatives for the Milan Beltway—Airport Road grade connection to the proposed Milan Beltway connection, which will be a four-land, fully access controlled expressway bridge over the Rock River. FAA's preferred alternative is the No Action Alternative, which requires no action on behalf of the Quad City International Airport. This Alternative would prevent any development in the southeast quadrant of the Milan Beltway—Airport Road intersection, eliminating the need to transfer any airport proposed to IDOT. However, the proximity of Route 280, roughly 1000 feet north of Airport Road, presents economic and engineering barriers that make the No Action Alternative impracticable.
FAA's ROAD concurs with FHWA's Selected Alternative, requiring the sale of 14.380 acres of airport property to IDOT. The Selected Alternative, constructing a partial cloverleaf/diamond interchange in the southeast quadrant of the Milan Beltway—Airport Road intersection, avoids the economic and engineering constraints posed by the proximity of Route 280, satisfies FHWA's purpose and need, poses the least impacts to the natural and human environment, may be advanced through detailed design and construction, and will pose no hazard to air navigation.
Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petitions for exemption received.
Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption part 11 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains a summary of a certain petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition.
Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before February 11, 2004.
You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FAA–2003–16192] by any of the following methods:
• Web site:
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–001.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to
John Linsenmeyer (202) 267–5174, Tim Adams (202) 267–8033, or Sandy Buchanan-Sumter (202) 267–7271, Office of Rulemaking (ARM–1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of dispositions of prior petitions.
Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption part 11 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains a summary of certain dispositions of certain petitions previously received. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities.
Tim Adams (202) 267–8033, or Sandy Buchanan-Sumter (202) 267–7271, Office of Rulemaking (ARM–1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces a public meeting of the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to discuss transport airplane and engine (TAE) issues.
The meeting is scheduled for February 10–11, 2004, starting at 8:30 a.m. on February 10. Arrange for oral presentations by February 6.
Boeing Facility, 1200 Wilson Boulevard, Room 234, Arlington, VA.
Effie Upshaw, Office of Rulemaking, ARM–209, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267–7626, FAX (202) 267–5075, or e-mail at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463; 5 U.S.C. app. III), notice is given of an ARAC meeting to be held February 10–11 in Arlington, Virginia.
The agenda will include:
• Opening remarks
• FAA Report
• European Aviation Safety Agency/Joint Aviation Authorities Report
• Transport Canada Report
• Executive Committee Report
• Harmonization Management Team Report
• Legal Expectations for ARAC Recommendations
• Human Factors Harmonization Working Group (HWG) Report
• Ice Protection HWG Report
• Avionics HWG Report and Approval
• General Structures HWG Report
• Written reports, as required, from the following harmonization working groups: Engine, Electromagnetic Effects, Flight Test, Seat Test, Flight Control, Flight Guidance, System Design and Analysis, Electrical Systems, Loads and Dynamics, Design for Security, Powerplant Installation, and Mechanical Systems. The Airworthiness Assurance working group may also provide a report.
• Discussion of section 25.1309 phase 2 task
• Review of Action Items and 2004 Meeting Schedule
If all the agenda items are discussed on February 10, no meeting will be held on February 11.
Attendance is open to the public, but will be limited to the availability of meeting room space and telephone lines. Visitor badges are required to gain entrance to the Boeing building where the meeting is being held. For badging purposes, you will need to provide your name, company, and nationality by January 30 to Sharon Neuner, (703) 465–3680,
For persons participating domestically by telephone, the call-in number is (866) 442–8714; for persons participating internationally, the number is (281) 540–4931. The Passcode for both numbers is: 14169163063. Details are also available on the ARAC calendar at
The public must make arrangements by February 6 to present oral statements at the meeting. Written statements may be presented to the committee at any time by providing 25 copies to the person listed in the
If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for the meeting or meeting documents, please contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of RTCA Special Committee 202 meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 202: Portable Electronic Devices.
The meeting will be held on January 20–23, 2004, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036–5133.
RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC, 20036–5133; telephone (202) 833–9339; fax (202) 833–9434; Web site
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 202 meeting. The agenda will include:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 235 and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of the signal system or relief from the
Norfolk Southern Corporation seeks approval of the proposed discontinuance and removal of the traffic control system, on all main, siding, and auxiliary tracks, between Clare, Ohio, milepost CT–9.0 and Winchester, Ohio, milepost CT–73.5, on the Lake Division, Cincinnati District, and convert the method of operation to track warrant control.
The reason given for the proposed changes is that the line is no longer needed as a through route, the Clare to Winchester portion will be used for local service only, and the Winchester to Vera portion of the line has been removed from service.
Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an application shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which the protest is made, and include a concise statement of the interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be furnished to the applicant at the address listed above.
All communications concerning this proceeding should be identified by the docket number and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room PL–401 (Plaza Level), 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by the FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at
FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
FRA expects to be able to determine these matters without an oral hearing. However, if a specific request for an oral hearing is accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present his or her position by written statements, an application may be set for public hearing.
This notice grants the application by Saleen, Inc., of Irvine, California (“Saleen”), for a renewal of a temporary exemption for its S7 passenger car from the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208,
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a notice of receipt of the application on July 25, 2003, and afforded an opportunity for comment (68 FR 44139).
The Saleen S7 is a high performance, limited production sports car built in Irvine, CA. The S7 costs approximately $400,000. In June 2001, NHTSA granted Saleen a two-year hardship exemption from the requirements of S4.1.5.3 of Standard No. 208, expiring July 1, 2003.
Petitioner began developing the S7 in February of 2000. Originally, Saleen expected to deliver the S7 vehicles to customers in the summer of 2001. However, product development and regulatory issues delayed production until March 6, 2003, when Saleen received Certificates of Conformity for the 2003 model year from the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board. Between March 6, 2003, and the date of the petition, Saleen sold eight S7s. Petitioner hopes to sell a total of 36 S7s by the end of 2003. In contrast, Saleen originally projected selling 112 S7s by the end of 2003.
Petitioner's other line of business consists of altering Ford Mustang vehicles. However, the company has “sustained a major slowdown” in the sales of these vehicles, which it attributes “to the downturn in the U.S. economy.” The company has produced only 79 “Saleen Mustangs” as of June 11, 2003, compared with 327 in the comparable period in 2002. The company currently maintains a payroll of 96 people. Previously, Saleen employed 122 individuals, but was forced to downsize in an effort to complete development of the S7.
In the original petition, Saleen estimated that it needed 20 months and approximately $3,000,000 to bring the S7 into compliance with Standard No. 208.
As previously stated, after commencing development of the Saleen S7 in 2000, petitioner has only recently received the necessary approval to begin deliveries to customers. Based on financial records accompanying the petition, Saleen lost $3,480,372 in the fiscal year 2000. In the fiscal year 2001, Saleen lost $4,738,588. In the fiscal year 2002, Saleen lost an additional $614,039. For a three-year period, petitioner experienced a cumulative net loss of $8,832,999.
In order to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208, petitioner would have to redesign the following equipment: (1) Steering wheel; (2) Steering column; (3) Dash panel (4) Gauge pod; (5) Seats and seat brackets; (6) Center console; (7) Interior trim panels; and (8) Wiring harness. Petitioner expects to rely on the continuous sales of S7 vehicles in order to fund a redesign of the above components. As previously stated, sales of the vehicle were delayed until March of 2003. As a result, petitioner did not have the resources necessary to bring the S7 in compliance with the non-advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 208.
Petitioner argues that a renewal of a temporary exemption is in the public interest because the S7 is a unique “super-car,” the only one of its kind to be designed and produced in the United States. An exemption would allow Saleen to continue producing these unique vehicles and to maintain its payroll of 96 full time employees. Petitioner notes that the S7 also utilizes many U.S.-sourced components. According to Saleen, production of the S7 indirectly provides employment for several hundred Americans who work for S7 domestic suppliers. Petitioner contends that an exemption would be consistent with vehicle safety objectives because the S7 will otherwise conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
The agency received a single comment in response to the notice requesting comment on the petition. The commenter, identified as Alan, H., was in favor of granting the petition. Specifically, Alan H. commented that Saleen S7 is the only U.S.-built “super car,” and that it compared favorably to such vehicles as Ferrari and Porsche. With respect to vehicle safety objectives, Alan H. noted that a $395,000 vehicle produced in very limited numbers would most likely be purchased as an “investment,” and would be subject to very infrequent and especially careful use.
Saleen is typical of small volume manufacturers who have received temporary exemptions in the past on hardship grounds. With limited resources, petitioner developed a high-priced automobile for a specialty market. Unfortunately, Saleen was unable to take advantage of the original exemption, granted on June 21, 2001, due to regulatory and production delays. Petitioner had anticipated using the profits it derived from sales of S7 automobiles to bring the vehicle into compliance by July 30, 2003. Because the sales did not commence until March of 2003, petitioner was unable to do so. Accordingly, Saleen has asked for additional time to bring the S7 into compliance with Standard No. 208.
If the petition is denied, the sale of S7 automobiles will cease immediately and the petitioner will be unable to derive financial resources necessary to bring the S7 into compliance with Standard No. 208. Saleen's financial statements show a net loss for the previous three fiscal years. Thus, it appears the petitioner does not have immediate resources available to bring the vehicle into compliance with Standard No. 208. Additionally, Saleen will be required to meet the new, advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 208 once the exemption expires. In evaluating Saleen's current situation, the agency finds that to require immediate compliance with Standard No. 208 would cause petitioner substantial economic hardship.
Traditionally, the agency has found that the public interest is served in affording continued employment to a small volume manufacturer's work force and to those of its U.S.-sourced component suppliers. The agency has also found that the public interest is served by affording the consumers a wider variety of motor vehicles. In this instance, denial of the petition would put Saleen's current payroll of 96 people in jeopardy. Denial of the petition may also affect the payrolls of U.S.-sourced component suppliers.
The vehicle in question will be manufactured in extremely limited quantities.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby found that compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 208 would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with the standard. It is further found that the granting of an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i), NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. 2001–6, exempting Saleen S7 from the requirements of 49 CFR 571.208; Standard No. 208,
George Feygin in the Office of Chief Counsel, NCC–112, (Phone: 202–366–
Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT.
Notice of information collection renewal and request for public comments.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Research and Special Programs Administration's (RSPA) Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) is publishing a notice indicating its intention to renew an existing information collection in support of RSPA/OPS's requirement that pipeline operators submit drug and alcohol test results for their employees. The purpose of this notice is to allow the public 60 days from the date of this notice to send in their comments.
RSPA/OPS believes that its drug and alcohol testing requirements are an important tool for operators to monitor drug and alcohol usage in the pipeline industry. RSPA/OPS has found, on a yearly basis, that less than 1% of employees in the pipeline industry tested positive for drug and alcohol usage.
Comments on this notice must be received no later than March 22, 2004, to be assured of consideration.
You must identify docket number RSPA–98–4957; Notice 04–02 at the beginning of your comments. Comments may be mailed to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Dockets Facility, Plaza 401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590 or sent by e-mail to
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
Marvin Fell, Office of Pipeline Safety, Research and Special Programs Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. 20950, (202) 366–6205 or by e-mail at
Abstract: Drug and alcohol abuse is a major societal problem and it is reasonable to assume the problem exists in the pipeline industry as it does in society as a whole. The potential harmful effect of drug and alcohol abuse on safe pipeline operations warrants imposing comprehensive testing regulations on the pipeline industry. These rules are found in 49 CFR 199.
Copies of this information collection can be reviewed at the Dockets Unit, Room 8421, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. You may review the public docket containing comments in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal Holidays. You may also review public dockets on the Internet at
Comments are invited on: (a) The need for the proposed collection of information 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 proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from the State of North Dakota (WB456—1/5/04), for permission to access data from the Board's Carload Waybill Samples beyond the scope of waybill information that the State may usually obtain. A copy of the request may be obtained from the Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and Administration.
The requested information from the waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to this request, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and Administration, within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
Mac Frampton, (202) 565–1541.
Allegheny & Eastern Railroad, LLC (A&E), a newly formed noncarrier and wholly owned subsidiary of Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad, Inc. (BPRR), has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire from BPRR the physical assets that comprise approximately 128.2 miles of rail line formerly operated by Allegheny & Eastern Railroad, Inc. (ALY), between milepost 2.8 in the City of Erie and milepost 131.0 in the City of St. Marys, in Erie, Warren, McKean and Elk Counties, PA. BPRR is acquiring the line in a related transaction concurrently
The transaction was expected to be consummated on January 1, 2004.
A&E certifies that its projected revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in the creation of a Class II or Class I rail carrier. It further certifies that its total annual revenues will not exceed $5 million.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34448, 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 Eric M. Hocky, Gollatz, Griffin & Ewing, P.C., Four Penn Center, Suite 200, 1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Philadelphia, PA 19103–2808.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad, Inc. (BPRR), Allegheny & Eastern Railroad, Inc. (ALY), Pittsburg & Shawmut Railroad, Inc. (PSRR), and Bradford Industrial Rail, Inc. (BIR) (collectively, applicants),
The transaction was expected to be consummated on January 1, 2004.
This transaction is related to STB Finance Docket No. 34448,
Applicants state that the transaction will not result in adverse changes in service levels, significant operational changes, or any change in the competitive balance with carriers outside the GWI corporate family. The merger will simplify GWI's corporate structure, streamline accounting, finance and management functions and facilitate improvements in operating efficiency for GWI's rail operations in western Pennsylvania and New York.
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Because the transaction involves one Class II rail carrier and one or more Class III rail carriers, the transaction will be made subject to the employee protective conditions described in 49 U.S.C. 11326(b).
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34447, 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 Eric M. Hocky, Gollatz, Griffin & Ewing, P.C., Four Penn Center, Suite 200, 1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Philadelphia, PA 19103–2808.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Pittsburg & Shawmut Railroad, LLC (P&S), a newly formed noncarrier and wholly owned subsidiary of Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad, Inc. (BPRR), has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire from BPRR the physical assets that comprise approximately 189.47 miles of rail line formerly operated by Pittsburg & Shawmut Railroad, Inc. (PSRR), between: (a) Brockway Yard, Brockway (milepost 0.0) and Freeport (milepost 88.027) (except for an abandoned segment between milepost 2.0 and milepost 19.0); (b) milepost 0.98 on the main line at Snyder Township (a/k/a milepost 0.0) and milepost 0.37; (c) Brookville Yard (milepost 20.89) and the connection with Mountain Laurel (milepost 0.30); (d) milepost 69.86 on the main line in East Franklin (a/k/a milepost 0.0) and milepost 1.28; (e) Lawsonham (milepost 6.0) and Driftwood (milepost 110.0); (f) Lawsonham (milepost 0.0) and Sligo (milepost 10.5); and (g) the end of track (milepost 4.0) and Lawsonham (milepost 6.0) (the lines). The lines are located in Armstrong, Cameron, Clarion, Clearfield, Elk, and Jefferson Counties, PA. BPRR is acquiring the lines in a related transaction concurrently filed in STB Finance Docket No. 34447,
The transaction was expected to be consummated on January 1, 2004.
P&S certifies that its projected revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in the creation of a Class II or Class I rail carrier. It further certifies that its total annual revenues will not exceed $5 million.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34449, 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 Eric M. Hocky, Gollatz, Griffin & Ewing, P.C., Four Penn Center, Suite 200, 1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Philadelphia, PA 19103–2808.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
It is in the public interest to continue the existence of the Art Advisory Panel. The current charter of the Art Advisory Panel will be renewed for a period of two years.
Karen E. Carolan, C:AP:ART, 1099 14th Street, NW., Room 4200 E, Washington, DC 20005, Telephone Number (202) 694–1861, (not a toll-free number).
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (2000), the Commissioner of Internal Revenue announces the renewal of the following advisory committee:
In order for the Panel to perform this function, Panel records and discussions must include tax return information. Therefore, the Panel meetings will be closed to the public since all portions of the meetings will concern matters that are exempted from disclosure under the provisions of section 552b(c)(3), (4), (6) and (7) of Title 5 of the U.S. Code. This determination, which is in accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, is necessary to protect the confidentiality of tax returns and return information as required by section 6103 of the Internal Revenue code.
Authority for this Panel will expire two years from the date the Charter is approved by the Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Financial Officer and filed with the appropriate congressional committees unless, prior to the expiration of its Charter, the Panel is renewed.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue has determined that this document is not a major rule as defined in Executive Order 12291 and that a regulatory impact analysis therefore is not required. Neither does this document constitute a rule subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6).
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted via teleconference.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, February 17, 2004, at 1:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.
Barbara Toy at 1–888–912–1227, or 414–297–1611.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) will be held Tuesday, February 17, 2004, from 1:30 to 3 p.m. Eastern standard time via a telephone conference call. If you would like to have the Joint Committee of TAP consider a written statement, please call 1–888–912–1227 or 414–297–1611, or write Barbara Toy, TAP Office, MS–1006–MIL, 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203–2221, or Fax to 414–297–1623. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Barbara Toy. Ms. Toy can be reached at 1–888–912–1227 or 414–297–1611, or Fax 414–297–1623.
The agenda will include the following: monthly committee summary report, discussion of issues brought to the joint committee, office report and discussion of next meeting.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Friday, February 20, 2004, from 11 a.m. EST to 12:30 p.m. EST.
Sallie Chavez at 1–888–912–1227, or 954–423–7979.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Friday, February 20, 2004, from 11 a.m. EST to 12:30 p.m. EST via a telephone conference call. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1–888–912–1227 or 954–423–7979, or write Sallie Chavez, TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Rd., Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Sallie Chavez. Ms. Chavez can be reached at 1–888–912–1227 or 954–423–7979.
The agenda will include: Various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Earned Income Tax Credit Issue Committee will be conducted (via teleconference) to discuss various issues. The public is invited to make oral comments.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, February 18, 2004.
Audrey Jenkins at 1–888–912–1227 (toll-free), or 718–488–2085 (non toll-free).
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Earned Income Tax Credit Issue Committee will be held Wednesday, February 18, 2004 at 2 p.m. ET via a telephone conference call. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1–888–912–1227 or 718–488–2085, or write Audrey Jenkins, TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Ms. Jenkins.
The agenda will include: Various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, February 18, 2004, at 8 a.m., Central Standard Time.
Mary Ann Delzer at 1–888–912–1227, or (414) 297–1604.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Wednesday, February 18, 2004, at 8 a.m., Central standard time via a telephone conference call. You can submit written comments to the panel by faxing to (414) 297–1623, or by mail to Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, Stop1006MIL, 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203–2221. Public comments will also be welcome during the meeting. Please contact Mary Ann Delzer at 1–888–912–1227 or (414) 297–1604 for dial-in information.
The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.
In rule document 04–722 beginning on page 2062 in the issue of Wednesday, January 14, 2004, make the following correction:
On page 2065, the table is corrected to read as follows:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
Today's action ratifies certain current language of the State and federal operating permits program rules under title V of the Clean Air Act (Act) concerning monitoring and declines to adopt the changes to the regulatory text of the monitoring rules that were proposed on September 17, 2002. Today EPA also announces a different interpretation of the “umbrella monitoring” rules (40 CFR 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1)) from that set forth in the preamble to that proposal. Notwithstanding the recitation in the umbrella monitoring rules of monitoring as a permit element, EPA has determined that the correct interpretation of the umbrella monitoring rules is that they do not establish a separate regulatory standard or basis for requiring or authorizing review and enhancement of existing monitoring independent of any review and enhancement as may be required under separate provisions of the operating permits rules. As explained in this action, the umbrella monitoring rules do not provide a basis for adding monitoring to title V permits independent of monitoring required under existing federal air pollution control rules and State implementation plan (SIP) rules (
Today's action is the first step in a four-step strategy for considering programmatic improvements to existing monitoring where necessary through rulemaking while reducing resource-intensive, case-by-case monitoring reviews and so-called “gap-filling” in title V permits. In addition, EPA intends to encourage States to improve monitoring requirements in certain SIP rules through guidance to be developed in connection with a separate rulemaking concerning the implementation of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter to be published in the near term. The EPA also intends to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in the near term to ask for comments on inadequate monitoring in applicable requirements (in addition to any monitoring addressed in the fine particulate guidance and rulemaking) and on appropriate methods for upgrading such monitoring. Finally, EPA expects to conduct a separate notice and comment rulemaking to address what types of existing monitoring are “periodic” under the periodic monitoring rules, and when the periodic monitoring rules apply, what types of monitoring satisfy the monitoring criteria contained in the periodic monitoring rules.
Under the Act, EPA has discretion to implement the title V monitoring requirements through rulemakings or case-by-case permit reviews. Today, EPA is committing to exercise its discretion under the Act to require any necessary improvements to existing monitoring through rulemaking, except where the periodic monitoring rules authorize the case-by-case addition of monitoring to individual permits. The EPA's interpretation of the Act, its own regulations, recent Court decisions, and several policy considerations underlie this decision. EPA believes, as a matter of policy, that it will be less burdensome on State, local and tribal permitting authorities and on sources, and far more equitable and efficient, to require any necessary improvements in monitoring requirements through rulemakings to revise federal applicable requirements or SIP rules, rather than by requiring permitting authorities to conduct case-by-case sufficiency monitoring reviews of individual permits.
Furthermore, EPA has decided not to adopt the changes to the regulatory text of the umbrella monitoring rules that were proposed in September 2002. For various reasons, EPA also has determined that the correct interpretation of the umbrella monitoring rules is that they do not establish a separate regulatory standard or basis requiring or authorizing the review and enhancement of existing monitoring independent of such review and enhancement as may be required under different provisions of the operating permits program rules that specifically set forth permit content requirements for monitoring. Upon reflection, EPA now believes that the plain language of the umbrella monitoring rules indicates that they constitute “umbrella provisions” for monitoring that direct permitting authorities to include monitoring required under existing statutory and regulatory authorities in permits, and which include and gain meaning from the more specific requirements for monitoring set forth in different provisions of the rules. The policy considerations described in this preamble as relevant to EPA's exercise of its discretion under the Act also inform EPA's interpretation of the umbrella monitoring rules. Thus, the effect of today's action will be that the umbrella monitoring rules neither require nor authorize permitting authorities to create new monitoring in operating permits, apart from including in permits such monitoring as may be required under the periodic monitoring rules and under applicable requirements, including the CAM rule where it applies.
This final rule is effective on February 23, 2004.
Mr. Jeff Herring, U.S. EPA, Information Transfer and Program Implementation Division, C304–04, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541–3195, facsimile number (919) 541–5509, or electronic mail at
Categories and entities potentially affected by this action include facilities currently required to obtain title V permits under State, local, tribal, or
1.
2.
An electronic version of a portion of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. Interested persons may use EPA Dockets at
Legacy Docket ID No. A–90–50 is the paper-based docket that is physically located in the EPA West Building in Washington D.C., while Electronic Docket (e-docket) ID No. OAR–2003–0179 is an electronic docket more recently created for internet access purposes during the course of this rulemaking (between the proposal and the final rule). In cases where the new e-dockets system was created during the course of a rulemaking, the EPA docket office has not routinely transferred all documents from the relevant conventional, paper dockets to the e-dockets, potentially creating disparities between the paper and e-dockets. The e-docket and the legacy dockets for this rulemaking contain the complete supporting materials for this rulemaking, however, each docket is not necessarily complete on its own. Due to this, interested persons should check both dockets for complete access to all supporting materials.
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's notice is also available on the World Wide Web through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of today's notice will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
Two provisions of EPA's State and federal operating permits program regulations require that title V permits contain monitoring requirements. The “periodic monitoring” rules, 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B), require that
On September 17, 2002, EPA published a proposed rule (67 FR 58561) (the “proposed rule”) to clarify the scope of the monitoring required in title V permits issued by State, local and
In today's final action, EPA declines to adopt the proposed revisions to the text of §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) and instead ratifies the regulatory text as it is currently worded. The EPA also announces that the Agency has determined that notwithstanding the recitation in §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) of monitoring as a permit element, the correct interpretation of §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) is that they do not provide a basis for requiring or authorizing review and enhancement of existing monitoring in title V permits independent of any review and enhancement as may be required under the periodic monitoring rules, the CAM rule (40 CFR part 64)(62 FR 54900, October 22, 1997) where it applies, and other applicable requirements under the Act, including, but not limited to, new source performance standards (NSPS), 40 CFR part 60, national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), 40 CFR part 61, acid rain program rules, 40 CFR parts 72 through 78, and SIP, tribal implementation plan (TIP) and federal implementation plan (FIP) rules approved by EPA under title I of the Act. Finally, EPA announces plans to address monitoring for purposes of title V in three separate actions.
The EPA has decided not to adopt the revisions to the regulatory text of §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) which we proposed in September 2002. Instead, we are ratifying the regulatory text of those rules as it is currently worded. Under today's final action, the text of §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) will continue to require, in relevant part, that all title V permits contain, “[c]onsistent with paragraph (a)(3) of this section, compliance certification, testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements sufficient to assure compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit.” Today's final action does not change any other regulatory text, as no other changes have been proposed.
Notwithstanding the recitation in §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) of monitoring as a permit element, EPA has determined that the correct interpretation of §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) is that these provisions do not establish a separate regulatory standard or basis for requiring or authorizing review and enhancement of existing monitoring independent of any review and enhancement as may be required under §§ 70.6(a)(3) and 71.6(a)(3). Thus, §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) require that title V permits contain the following types of monitoring: (1) Monitoring required by “applicable requirements” under the Act as that term is defined in § 70.2, including, but not limited to, monitoring required under the CAM rule, where it applies, monitoring required under federal rules such as NSPS, NESHAP, maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards, 40 CFR part 63, acid rain rules, and SIP, TIP and FIP rules; and (2) such monitoring as may be required under §§ 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B).
Today's action is the first in a four-step strategy for improving existing monitoring where necessary through rulemaking actions while reducing resource-intensive, case-by-case monitoring reviews and “gap-filling” in title V permits. The EPA plans to undertake three related actions in the near future.
First, EPA plans to encourage States to improve possibly inadequate monitoring in certain SIP rules. Specifically, EPA plans to address such monitoring in guidance to be developed in connection with an upcoming rulemaking concerning the implementation of the NAAQS for fine particulate matter (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers, or PM 2.5). The primary purpose of the proposed PM 2.5 implementation rule will be to describe the requirements that States and tribes have to meet in order to implement the PM 2.5 NAAQS. Because opacity and particulate monitoring are related to compliance with particulate matter standards, one part of this proposal will address EPA's plans to develop guidance on how States can reduce PM 2.5 emissions by improving source monitoring related to particulate matter emission limits. This may include increasing the frequency of existing opacity monitoring, adding monitoring for parameters of a control device, installing continuous particulate emissions monitoring, or a combination of the above.
Second, EPA plans to identify and consider improving possibly inadequate monitoring in certain federal rules or monitoring in SIP rules not addressed in connection with the PM 2.5 implementation guidance or rulemaking over a longer time frame. To initiate this process, we intend to publish an ANPR requesting comment on what inadequate monitoring may exist in federal applicable requirements and seeking suggestions as to the ways in which inadequate monitoring in such rules could be improved. We further intend to request comment on inadequate monitoring that may exist in other rules, such as SIP rules not addressed in the PM 2.5 implementation rule. Implementation of this second step should substantially strengthen our efforts to assure compliance with applicable standards. Comments received on the ANPR will inform EPA's decision as to what steps to take next. Next steps may include national rulemakings to revise federal rules such as NSPS or NESHAP, or issuance of
Third, EPA plans to publish a separate proposed rule to address what monitoring constitutes “periodic” monitoring under §§ 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B). As part of this separate proposed rule, we also intend to address what types of monitoring should be created under §§ 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B). Many commenters on the proposed rule raised concerns over a lack of definitive guidance on this question, primarily due to the fact that EPA has not issued any such guidance since the Appalachian Power court set aside the Agency's 1998 “Periodic Monitoring Guidance.”
Several considerations—many of which were raised in comments on the proposed rule—motivate our decision to pursue an approach to title V monitoring that will achieve necessary improvements in monitoring primarily through national rulemakings or guidance for States to revise their SIP rules. We believe this approach will achieve a better balance of responsibilities and resource burdens between the States and EPA, than by case-by-case monitoring reviews by the permitting authorities under §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1).
First, today's approach will better balance the responsibilities of States and other permitting authorities and EPA to improve monitoring where necessary to ensure that the Act's monitoring requirements are met. Under the interpretation in the proposed rule, permitting authorities would perform case-by-case monitoring reviews of individual title V permits under §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1), which in turn would place many significant burdens on State, local, and tribal permitting authorities charged with implementing §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1). EPA and permitting authorities have some experience with such an approach. For each draft title V permit, permitting authorities performed such monitoring reviews with respect to virtually every permit term or condition and determined, generally without any definitive, national EPA guidance, whether the existing monitoring was sufficient to assure compliance with such terms and conditions. The complex industrial sources and other sources subject to title V are subject to numerous applicable requirements and their draft permits contain numerous terms and conditions, which means that such reviews are time-consuming. In addition, the reviews demand permit writers with highly technical expertise. Where permit writers determined that §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) applied because existing monitoring would not assure compliance, permit writers also determined what monitoring to include in permits to assure compliance with the permits' terms and conditions. Thus, these States and other permitting authorities found themselves in the awkward position of reviewing existing monitoring for sufficiency under §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) before EPA clearly indicated what monitoring was insufficient and then creating new monitoring in permits under those provisions before EPA explained what types of monitoring would satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements. Over the years, some permitting authorities have attributed delays in permit issuance to their efforts to develop monitoring for permits on a case-by-case basis.
These concerns are reflected in the comments received on the proposed rule from State and local permitting authorities. (See more detailed EPA responses to all significant comments raised on the proposal below, and in a separate document placed in the docket.) Two representatives of State and local permitting authorities commented on the proposal, they both disagreed with the proposed rule's overall approach for monitoring, and they both noted either significant concerns or burdens that they perceived in implementing it. One cited the burdens of conducting sufficiency reviews and adding new monitoring to permits in more cases than they thought were appropriate or were required by the Act. The commenter also indicated that such monitoring would likely result in more arbitrary and less consistent monitoring from permit to permit and make permit issuance more difficult. Another State commenter did not understand specifically what States would be required to do to implement the proposal, if it were to be adopted as a final rule. Neither of the State or local commenters filed comments that could be interpreted as adverse to the approach of today's final rule. In addition, other commenters indicated that the proposed rule's approach would lead to increased burdens on States.
Thus, we now are convinced that requiring States and other permitting authorities to assess the adequacy of all existing monitoring, and, as necessary, to upgrade monitoring through the title V permitting process would place a significant, unmanageable and unnecessary burden on those permitting authorities.
Similarly, we are convinced that requiring sufficiency reviews under §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) places undue burdens on title V sources. Many commenters disagreed with the proposed rule's approach to monitoring and cited numerous examples of how it would lead to increased burdens not only on States but also on sources. For instance, commenters claimed that it would delay permit issuance and renewals, represent an inefficient use of State resources, and promote “forum shopping” by sources, resulting in inequities among similarly-situated sources in different jurisdictions or even within the same jurisdiction.
Furthermore, under the proposal, the State permit writers were given no guidance as to how to set these monitoring requirements, as commenters pointed out. Using rulemaking to revise monitoring requirements will assure that the new monitoring requirements are adopted in the same manner as the originally promulgated standards. That original promulgation included a determination that the standards were achievable assuming the specified control technologies. Commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule would illegally increase the stringency of underlying emission standards and limitations because it would require new averaging periods or change other compliance methods when added to the permit. Similar issues were raised in
In addition to reducing burdens on title V permitting authorities and sources, today's action offers several other advantages over the proposed rule's approach. We believe it is a far better and more efficient approach from a resource standpoint to focus primarily on reviewing the adequacy of existing monitoring requirements on a programmatic basis and to accomplish needed upgrades through federal, State, or local rulemaking. Programmatic “fixes” to monitoring in applicable requirements made through national or State rulemakings will address potential inadequacies in existing monitoring requirements in the first instance. Thus, there will be no need to resort to more resource-intensive, case-by-case sufficiency reviews to supplement existing monitoring under §§ 70.6(c)(1)
The final rule also is likely to result in greater consistency in monitoring requirements included in permits, both within States and nationally. When inadequate monitoring is improved through rulemaking at the national or State level, the improved monitoring can be incorporated into title V permits with little, if any, source-specific tailoring, thereby eliminating some of the variations in monitoring determinations inherent in case-by-case reviews. Under the proposed rule's approach, such variations may have resulted from permitting authorities' different policies on what monitoring to add to permits, from variations in engineering judgment among permit writers, and from complex source-specific factors. More consistent monitoring requirements in permits nationally should help to eliminate some of the concern over forum shopping pointed out by the commenters, as well as concerns about potential inequities in monitoring amongst similarly-situated sources in different jurisdictions.
In addition, we expect that today's approach is likely to result in broader public input into monitoring decisions than is possible during individual permit proceedings. This is so because formal rulemaking procedures involve an opportunity for public comment and a hearing that may attract a larger national or State audience of individuals more interested in consistent outcomes and perhaps more knowledgeable about technical issues specific to the source categories or applicable requirements that are the subject of the rulemaking. Moreover, the final rules are more likely than individual permit proceedings to result in better consideration of potential economic impacts. Statutory or regulatory provisions or Executive Orders requiring detailed consideration of economic impacts or other burdens imposed by various types of monitoring may apply to federal or State rulemakings; such consideration is not required in individual permit proceedings. Thus, compared to the proposed rule's approach, this approach has the added benefit of providing a greater degree of clarity and the opportunity for a wider interested public to influence decisions concerning the adequacy of monitoring and efforts to accomplish upgrades.
Finally, commenters expressed concern about the statutory underpinnings of sufficiency monitoring under §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) along the lines of the D.C. Circuit's observation in
For all of these reasons, we believe today's approach will better balance the roles and responsibilities of States and other permitting authorities, on the one hand, and EPA, on the other, to improve the monitoring required of title V sources where necessary to ensure that the Act's title V monitoring requirements are met.
The Act provides EPA with broad discretion to decide how to implement the title V monitoring requirements. In the past, EPA has exercised that discretion in part by requiring permitting authorities to conduct case-by-case monitoring reviews under §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) and, where necessary to assure compliance, to add monitoring pursuant to those provisions prior to issuing, renewing, reopening, or revising title V operating permits. The EPA also has established monitoring requirements under national rules, such as the CAM rule and the continuous emission monitoring rule under the acid rain program (40 CFR part 75). Based on comments received on the proposed rule and as a matter of policy (see section IV of this preamble), EPA now believes that it is not appropriate to exercise our discretion under the statute to require case-by-case monitoring reviews under §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1). The EPA believes that improving the monitoring required of title V sources by conducting rulemakings to revise federal standards that contain inadequate monitoring and/or by encouraging States to revise SIP rules that contain inadequate monitoring will better balance the responsibilities of EPA and States and other permitting authorities and will result in more equitable and more efficient monitoring decisions.
Accordingly, EPA has decided not to adopt the proposed rule, which would have removed the prefatory phrase, “[c]onsistent with paragraph (a)(3) of this section,” from the regulatory text of §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1). See 67 FR 58561. Rather, EPA has decided to leave the regulatory text as it stands and to issue what EPA now believes to be the correct interpretation of §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1). Specifically, EPA has determined that notwithstanding the recitation in §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) of monitoring as a permit element, the correct interpretation of §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) is that these provisions do not establish a separate regulatory standard or basis for requiring or authorizing review and enhancement of existing monitoring independent of any review and enhancement as may be required under §§ 70.6(a)(3) and 71.6(a)(3).
Various factors have prompted EPA's decision regarding §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1). Significantly, upon reflection, EPA believes that the plain language of §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1), which begins with the phrase “[c]onsistent with” §§ 70.6(a)(3) and 71.6(a)(3), indicates that §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) serve as “umbrella provisions” for monitoring which include and gain meaning from the more specific monitoring requirements in §§ 70.6(a)(3) and 71.6(a)(3). Both §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) provide only that permits contain “monitoring * * * requirements sufficient to assure compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit.” Read in isolation, this general language does not provide any indication of what type or frequency of monitoring is required. Yet, for monitoring, §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) take on practical meaning when they are read together with the more detailed periodic monitoring rules, which specify that periodic monitoring must be “sufficient to yield reliable data from the relevant time period that are representative of the source's compliance with the permit,” or with other provisions of §§ 70.6(a)(3) and 71.6(a)(3).
In addition, the policy considerations discussed in section IV of this preamble support EPA's determination that today's interpretation of §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) is the correct one. In sum, today's approach will better balance the responsibilities of States and other permitting authorities and EPA to improve monitoring where necessary to ensure that the Act's monitoring
Today's interpretation of §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) is consistent with EPA's authority under the Act. In title V, Congress granted EPA broad discretion to decide how to implement the title V monitoring requirements, as well as the “enhanced monitoring” requirement of section 114(a)(3) of the Act.
Other provisions of title V refer to the monitoring required in individual operating permits. Section 504(c) of the Act, which contains the most detailed statutory language concerning monitoring, requires that “[e]ach [title V permit] shall set forth inspection, entry, monitoring, compliance certification, and reporting requirements to assure compliance with the permit terms and conditions.” 42 U.S.C. 7661c(c). Section 504(c) further specifies that “[s]uch monitoring and reporting requirements shall conform to any applicable regulation under [section 504(b)]. * * *” Id. Section 504(a) more generally requires that “[e]ach [title V permit] shall include enforceable emission limitations and standards, * * * and such other conditions as are necessary to assure compliance with applicable requirements of this Act, including the requirements of the applicable implementation plan.” 42 U.S.C. 7661c(a).
Thus, title V clearly authorizes the Agency to require improvements to the existing monitoring required by applicable requirements in at least two ways. Under the statute, the Agency may require case-by-case monitoring reviews as described in the proposed rule. Alternatively, the Agency may achieve any improvements to monitoring through Federal or State rulemakings to amend the monitoring provisions of applicable requirements themselves; then permitting authorities can simply incorporate the amended monitoring requirements into title V permits without engaging in case-by-case monitoring reviews under §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) on a permit-specific basis. The EPA believes that the latter approach correctly reflects the plain language of §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1), is responsive to the majority of public comments received on the proposed rule, and gives effect to the policy considerations discussed in this preamble. Thus, we are exercising our discretion under the Act to no longer require case-by-case monitoring reviews under §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) and instead to proceed with related rulemaking actions to address monitoring in applicable requirements.
The four-step approach outlined today will ensure that the Act's monitoring requirements will be met. First, our new emphasis on establishing monitoring requirements through rulemaking gives full effect to section 504(b) of the Act, which provides that “[t]he Administrator may
The EPA anticipates that some existing monitoring required under applicable requirements could be improved and will be addressed in connection with both the upcoming PM 2.5 implementation rulemaking and the ANPR process described above. The EPA also plans to address the periodic monitoring rules in a separate rulemaking. Nevertheless, EPA believes the four-step strategy outlined today is well designed to assure that for purposes of title V, permits will contain monitoring to assure compliance.
This section of the preamble provides EPA's responses to significant issues raised by commenters on the proposed rule. A more comprehensive document addressing these and other issues raised by commenters will be placed in the docket prior to promulgation of today's final rule.
Many commenters were concerned that there was nothing in the part 70, part 71, or CAM rulemaking records to indicate that § 70.6(c)(1) was originally intended to provide a separate and independent regulatory standard, in addition to the periodic monitoring requirements under § 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B), to enhance existing monitoring in applicable requirements, or enhance periodic monitoring already created in part 70 permits. Instead, the commenters stated, the preamble to the original part 70 final rule (57 FR 32250, July 21, 1992) said monitoring enhancement was being implemented solely through § 70.6(a)(3), and that permitting authorities may enhance existing monitoring only where an applicable requirement failed to require monitoring that was periodic.
For the reasons set forth in sections IV and V of this preamble, today's action makes clear that §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) do not establish a separate regulatory standard or basis for requiring or authorizing review and enhancement of existing monitoring, independent of any review and enhancement as may be required under §§ 70.6(a)(3) and 71.6(a)(3). Rather, for monitoring, §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) act as “umbrella provisions” that direct permitting authorities to include in title V permits monitoring required under existing statutory and regulatory authorities. Thus, we are not adopting the proposed revision to the text of §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1). In light of today's action, we do not believe it is necessary to address the referenced rulemaking records as they may relate to the proposed rule.
Many commenters opined that EPA must conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking, consistent with section 504(b) of the Act, to upgrade monitoring in applicable requirements, using the same procedures and criteria that were used to set the original standards. They reasoned that upgrading monitoring on a permit-by-permit basis is illegal because it is arbitrary and capricious and an unlawful delegation of regulatory authority not explicitly allowed by section 504(b) of the Act, which requires new monitoring to be imposed only by rule. In addition, they believe adding new monitoring under § 70.6(c)(1) would revise the emission standards in violation of section 307(d)(1)(C) of the Act, which requires separate rulemaking to revise emission standards.
In response to these comments, it appears that this issue need not be addressed in this action because EPA has committed to exercise its discretion under the Act to pursue rulemaking to improve existing monitoring requirements, as opposed to case-by-case monitoring reviews under §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1). Nonetheless, as explained elsewhere in this preamble, EPA believes that the Act authorizes it to meet the title V monitoring requirements by requiring permitting authorities to add monitoring to permits on a case-by-case basis or by pursuing rulemaking to improve monitoring requirements in Federal or State applicable requirements.
As for the comments that the proposal to upgrade monitoring on a permit-by-permit basis was arbitrary and capricious, was an unlawful delegation of regulatory authority not explicitly allowed by section 504(b) of the Act, and would revise emission standards in violation of section 307(d)(1)(C) of the Act, EPA believes it is not necessary to respond to these comments because we have decided not to adopt the proposed changes to the regulatory text of §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) and we have determined that the correct interpretation of those provisions is that they do not establish a separate regulatory standard or basis for requiring or authorizing review and enhancement of existing monitoring independent of any review and enhancement as may be required under §§ 70.6(a)(3) and 71.6(a)(3). To the extent the comments could be read to raise the concerns listed above with respect to the upgrading of monitoring under §§ 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B), EPA notes that these issues were beyond the scope of this rulemaking and were not opened for comment.
Many commenters believed that the proposed rule was inconsistent with the
We believe it is not necessary to respond to these comments because EPA is not adopting the proposed revisions to the text of §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1), and because EPA has determined that the correct interpretation of §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) is that these provisions do not establish a separate regulatory standard or basis for requiring or authorizing review and enhancement of existing monitoring independent of any review and enhancement as may be required under §§ 70.6(a)(3) and 71.6(a)(3).
Several commenters stated that they believed that § 70.1(b) and the Act do not allow substantive new requirements, such as monitoring, to be added to permits. Section 70.1(b) provides: “All sources subject to these regulations shall have a permit to operate that assures compliance by the source with all applicable requirements. While title V does not impose substantive new requirements, it does require * * * that certain procedural measures be adopted especially with respect to compliance.”
The Act expressly requires that permits contain “conditions as are necessary to assure compliance with applicable requirements” and in particular “monitoring * * * to assure compliance with the permit terms and conditions.” 42 U.S.C. 7661c(a), 7661c(c);
Several commenters were concerned that the proposed revisions to the text of §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) would result in the elimination of the Act's requirement for “reasonable monitoring.” The commenters asserted that the current standard for monitoring and certifying compliance in title V permits is “a reasonable assurance of compliance, quantified by the exercise of good and accepted science, which is the same standard used by CAM.” The commenters further asserted that the proposed rule would change the monitoring standard to an “absolute assurance of compliance,” which could only be achieved by stringent and expensive direct monitoring techniques, such as continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS).
EPA responds by noting that the proposed rule made no statements regarding either an “absolute assurance of compliance” or a “reasonable assurance of compliance” as the standard for monitoring and/or for certifying compliance in title V permits. Nor does today's final rule. The proposed rule made clear that its scope was narrow. The EPA stated in the preamble: “This proposed rule is limited to the removal of the prefatory phrase ‘[c]onsistent with paragraph (a)(3) of this section’ from §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) in order to clarify the scope of these provisions. This
Many commenters opined that the proposed rule would illegally increase the stringency of underlying emission standards and limitations because it would require new averaging periods or change other compliance methods when added to the permit.
Today's action will not require or authorize the addition of monitoring to permits under §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1). To the extent the comments concern the addition of monitoring to permits under §§ 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B), we believe it is not necessary to respond because that issue is beyond the scope of this rulemaking and was not reopened for comment. The proposed rule was limited to the removal of the prefatory phrase “[c]onsistent with paragraph (a)(3) of this section” from §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1). (67 FR 58561, 58565, September 17, 2002).
Several commenters stated that the proposal required monitoring data derived from monitoring conducted pursuant to §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) to be used as direct proof of violations in enforcement actions, without consideration of other credible evidence or the totality of circumstances.
The proposed rule was limited to the removal of the prefatory phrase “[c]onsistent with paragraph (a)(3) of this section” from §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) and did not address any other issues related to title V monitoring (67 FR 58561, 58565, September 17, 2002). The EPA did not explicitly or implicitly seek comment on the use of monitoring data in enforcement actions or the consideration of other credible evidence. Those issues were resolved in the credible evidence rule (62 FR 8313, February 24, 1997), and they were not reopened in this rulemaking. The credible evidence rule “[did] not designate any particular data as probative of a violation of an emission standard” but rather eliminated language in 40 CFR parts 51, 52, 60 and 61 that “some [had] construed to be a regulatory bar to the admission of non-reference test data [such as other monitoring data] to prove a violation of an emission standard* * *.” 62 FR at 8314. Thus, the credible evidence rule clarified that non-reference test data can be used in enforcement actions and that in addition to reference test data, “other material information that indicates that an emission unit has experienced deviations * * * or may otherwise be out of compliance with an applicable requirement even though the unit's permit-identified data indicates compliance” must be considered in compliance certifications under title V of the Act. 62 FR at 8320. The credible evidence rule thereby “eliminate[d] any potential ambiguity regarding the use of non-reference test data as a basis for [t]itle V compliance certifications.” 62 FR at 8314;
Many commenters alleged that the proposed rule was not a proper rulemaking under the Act or the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it would have made substantive changes to §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) without adequate notice, explanation, or justification. In addition, many of these same commenters thought the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), and the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) were not met, and that the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and the Information Collection Request (ICR) did not adequately reflect the true costs of the proposal.
The EPA disagrees that the proposed rule was not a proper rulemaking. The proposed rule, which was published in the
As stated above, today's action is the first step in a four-step strategy we expect will result in a better approach for meeting the Act's monitoring requirements than that reflected in the proposed rule. In the near future, EPA intends to address additional issues related to title V monitoring in two separate proposed rules and in an ANPR. First, EPA plans to encourage States to improve inadequate monitoring in certain SIP rules in guidance to be developed in connection with an upcoming rule, the PM 2.5 implementation rule, which primarily will address the implementation of the NAAQS for PM 2.5. We intend to use the PM 2.5 implementation rulemaking as a vehicle for addressing monitoring in certain SIP rules, because particulate and opacity monitoring are related to compliance with particulate matter emission limits. Second, over a longer time frame, EPA plans to identify and consider improving possibly inadequate monitoring in certain federal rules or in SIP rules not addressed in the proposed PM 2.5 implementation rule. In the near term, EPA expects to initiate this process by publishing an ANPR requesting comments to identify inadequate monitoring requirements in federal applicable requirements and State SIP rules (in addition to those requirements addressed in the proposed PM 2.5 implementation rule) and seeking suggestions as to the ways in which inadequate monitoring in such rules could be improved. Third, in a separate proposed rule, EPA plans to address two issues related to title V monitoring. First, EPA plans to address what monitoring constitutes “periodic” monitoring under §§ 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
1. Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, adversely affecting in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety in State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
2. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
3. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs of the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
Under Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” because it raises important legal and policy issues. As such, this rule was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record. In section V.A. of the proposal (
This action does not impose any new information collection burden. It does not adopt the proposed revision to the text of §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1). It merely states that notwithstanding the recitation in §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) of monitoring as a permit element, these provisions do not establish a separate regulatory standard or basis for requiring or authorizing review and enhancement of existing monitoring independent of any review and enhancement as may be required under §§ 70.6(a)(3) and 71.6(a)(3). However, the information collection requirements in the existing regulations (parts 70 and 71) were previously approved by OMB under the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The RFA generally requires an Agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small businesses found in 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, country, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. We determined and hereby certify this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The originally promulgated part 70 and part 71 rules included the text of §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1), and this final rule does not revise that text. Moreover, any burdens associated with the interpretation of §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) announced today are less than those associated with the interpretation under the proposed rule and previously enunciated by the Agency. Thus, today's final rule adds no burdens for any small entities.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104–4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least-costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply where they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
Today's rule contains no federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Today's final rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Rather, EPA merely states that §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) do not establish a separate regulatory standard or basis for requiring or authorizing review and enhancement of existing monitoring independent of any review and enhancement as may be required under the periodic monitoring rules, §§ 70.6(a)(3) and 71.6(a)(3). Therefore, today's action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
In addition, EPA has determined that this final rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Today EPA sets out the correct interpretation of §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1), which is that they do not require or authorize title V permitting authorities—including any small governments that may be such permitting authorities—to conduct reviews and provide enhancement of existing monitoring through case-by-case monitoring reviews of individual permits under §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1). Therefore, today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Today's rule will not impose any new requirements. Accordingly, it will not alter the overall relationship or distribution of powers between governments for the part 70 and part 71 operating permits programs. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this final rule.
Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes.”
This final rule 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 in Executive Order 13175. Today's action does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. As discussed above, today's action imposes no new requirements that would impose compliance burdens beyond those that would already apply. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rule.
Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
This final rule is not a “significant energy action,” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action merely declines to adopt the proposed revisions to the text of §§ 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) and states that these provisions do not establish a separate regulatory standard or basis for requiring or authorizing review and enhancement of existing monitoring independent of any review and enhancement of monitoring as may be required under §§ 70.6(a)(3) and 71.6(a)(3). Further, we have concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
The NTTAA does not apply to this final rule because it does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801