Agricultural Marketing Service
Agricultural Research Service
Farm Service Agency
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Science and Technology Policy Office
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
Customs and Border Protection Bureau
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Research and Special Programs Administration
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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective May 4, 2004. The compliance date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 4, 2004.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located;
3.The Flight Inspection Area Office which originated the SIAP; or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located.
Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, and 8260-5. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment to part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP amendments may have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Data Center (NFDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
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. It, therefore—(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) does not warrant preparation of a
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to correct the description of certain precursor chemicals on the Commerce Control List to make it consistent with the list of “Schedule 2” chemicals under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
This rule is effective May 4, 2004.
Written comments should be sent to Matthew Blaskovich, Regulatory Policy Division, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, Room 2705, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Ivan Rios, Office of Chemical and Biological Controls and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security, Telephone: (202) 482-7900.
This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by correcting the description of certain precursor chemicals in Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 1C355 on the Commerce Control List (CCL) to make it consistent with the list of “Schedule 2” chemicals under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Specifically, this rule corrects ECCN 1C355a.2.a to be consistent with the description in Schedule 2.B(4) of the CWC, set forth in Supplement No. 1 to Part 745 of the EAR, by changing “* * * with no additional carbon atoms in the structure,” to “* * * but not further carbon atoms” at the end of the description. This correction is necessary to clarify that all Schedule 2.B(4) chemicals are controlled for export under ECCN 1C355. This final rule also deletes the sub-heading “Family” of ECCN 1C355a.2.a to correct the description of this category of chemicals.
Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (66 FR 44025, August 22, 2001), as extended by the Notice of August 7, 2003 (68 FR 47833, August 11, 2003), continues the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Shipments of items that are subject to a license requirement as a result of this regulatory action that were on dock for loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting carrier, or en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, on May 4, 2004, pursuant to actual orders for export to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination without a license so long as they have been exported from the United States before May 18, 2004. Any such items not actually exported before midnight, on May 18, 2004, require a license in accordance with this regulation.
1. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 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, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget Control Number. This rule involves a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in 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
Therefore, this regulation is issued in final form. Although there is no formal comment period, public comments on this regulation are welcome on a continuing basis. Comments should be submitted to Matthew Blaskovich, Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2705, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Exports, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
1C355 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) Schedule 2 and 3 chemicals and families of chemicals not controlled by ECCN 1C350 or by the Department of State under the ITAR.
a. CWC Schedule 2 chemicals and mixtures containing Schedule 2 chemicals: a.1. Toxic chemicals, as follows, and mixtures containing toxic chemicals: a.1.a. PFIB: 1,1,3,3,3-Pentafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl)-1-propene (C.A.S. 382-21-8) and mixtures in which PFIB constitutes more than 1 percent of the weight of the mixture;
a.1.b. [RESERVED]
a.2. Precursor chemicals, as follows, and mixtures in which at least one of the following precursor chemicals constitutes more than 10 percent of the weight of the mixture:
a.2.a. Chemicals, except for those listed in Schedule 1, containing a phosphorus atom to which is bonded one methyl, ethyl, or propyl (normal or iso) group but not further carbon atoms.
1C355.a.2.a does not control Fonofos: O-Ethyl S-phenyl ethylphosphonothiolothionate (C.A.S. 944-22-9).
a.2.b. FAMILY: N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) phosphoramidic dihalides;
a.2.c. FAMILY: Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) N,N-dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr, or i-Pr)-phosphoramidates;
a.2.d. FAMILY: N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) aminoethyl-2-chlorides and corresponding protonated salts;
a.2.e. FAMILY: N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) aminoethane-2-ols and corresponding protonated salts;
1C355.a.2.e. does not control N,N-Dimethylaminoethanol and corresponding protonated salts (C.A.S. 108-01-0) or N,N-Diethylaminoethanol and corresponding protonated salts (C.A.S. 100-37-8).
a.2.f. FAMILY: N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) aminoethane-2-thiols and corresponding protonated salts.
b. CWC Schedule 3 chemicals and mixtures containing Schedule 3 chemicals:
b.1. Toxic chemicals, as follows, and mixtures in which at least one of the following toxic chemicals constitutes 30 percent or more of the weight of the mixture:
b.1.a. Phosgene: Carbonyl dichloride (C.A.S. 75-44-5);
b.1.b. Cyanogen chloride (C.A.S. 506-77-4);
b.1.c. Hydrogen cyanide (C.A.S. 74-90-8).
b.2. Precursor chemicals, as follows, and mixtures in which at least one of the following precursor chemicals constitutes 30 percent or more of the weight of the mixture:
b.2.a. Ethyldiethanolamine (C.A.S. 139-87-7);
b.2.b. Methyldiethanolamine (C.A.S. 105-59-9).
b.3. Mixtures containing chloropicrin
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
This rule amends the Export Administration Regulation Commerce Control List (CCL) to reflect changes to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Annex agreed to at the September 2003 Plenary in Buenos Aires, Argentina. All revisions and additions are made to ensure that items that can be utilized in missiles of MTCR concern are appropriately controlled.
This rule is effective May 4, 2004.
Steven B. Clagett, Director, Nuclear and Missile Technology Controls Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Telephone: (202) 482-1641.
The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) is an export control arrangement among 33 nations, including the world's most advanced suppliers of ballistic missiles and missile-related materials and equipment. The regime establishes a common export control policy based on a list of controlled items and on guidelines that member countries follow to implement national export controls. The goal of maintaining the Annex and the Guidelines is to stem the flow of missile systems capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction to the global marketplace.
While the MTCR was originally created to prevent the spread of missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, it was expanded in January 1993 to also cover delivery systems for chemical and biological weapons. The only absolute prohibition in the regime's Guidelines is on the transfer of complete “production facilities” for specially designed items in Category I of the MTCR Annex.
MTCR members voluntarily pledge to adopt the regime's export Guidelines and to restrict the export of items contained in the regime's Annex. The implementation of the regime's Guidelines is effectuated through the national export control laws and policies of the regime members.
The Commerce Control List (CCL) is amended to reflect changes to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Annex agreed to at the September 2003 Plenary in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The following ECCNs are affected:
Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (66 FR 44025, August 22, 2001), as extended by the Notice of August 7, 2003 (68 FR 47833, August 11, 2003), continues the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Shipments of items removed from license exception eligibility or NLR authorization as a result of this regulatory action that were on dock for loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting carrier, or en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, on May 4, 2004, pursuant to actual orders for export to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous license exception eligibility or NLR authorization provisions so long as they have been exported from the United States before June 3, 2004. Any such items not actually exported before midnight, on June 3, 2004, require a license in accordance with this regulation.
1. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 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, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget Control Number. This rule involves a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in 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
Therefore, this regulation is issued in final form. Although there is no formal comment period, public comments on this regulation are welcome on a continuing basis. Comments should be submitted to Matthew Blaskovich, Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2705, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Exports, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
1B118 Continuous mixers with provision for mixing under vacuum in the range from zero to 13.326 kPa and with temperature control capability of the mixing chamber and having any of the following characteristics (see List of Items Controlled), and specially designed components therefor.
a. Two or more mixing/kneading shafts; or
b. A single rotating shaft which oscillates and has kneading teeth/pins on the shaft as well as inside the casing of the mixing chamber.
1C111 Propellants and constituent chemicals for propellants, other than those specified in 1C011, as follows (
a. Propulsive substances:
a.1. Spherical aluminum powder, other than that specified on the U.S. Munitions List, with particles of uniform diameter of less than 200 micrometer and an aluminum content of 97% by weight or more, if at least 10 percent of the total weight is made up of particles of less than 63 micrometer, according to ISO 2591:1988 or national equivalents such as JIS Z8820.
A particle size of 63 micrometer (ISO R-565) corresponds to 250 mesh (Tyler) or 230 mesh (ASTM standard E-11).
a.2. Metal fuels, other than that controlled by the U.S. Munitions List, in particle sizes of less than z60 x 10
a.2.a Zirconium;
a.2.b Beryllium;
a.2.c Magnesium; or
a.2.d Alloys of the metals specified by a.2.a to a.2.c above.
The natural content of hafnium in the zirconium (typically 2% to 7%) is counted with the zirconium.
a.3. Liquid oxidizers, as follows:
a.3.a. Dinitrogen trioxide;
a.3.b. Nitrogen dioxide/dinitrogen tetroxide;
a.3.c. Dinitrogen pentoxide;
a.3.d. Mixed oxides of nitrogen (MON);
a.3.e. Inhibited red fuming nitric acid (IRFNA);
Mixed oxides of nitrogen (MON) are solutions of nitric oxide (NO) in dinitrogen tetroxide/nitrogen dioxide (N
b. Polymeric substances:
b.1. Carboxy-terminated polybutadiene (CTPB);
b.2. Hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB), other than that controlled by the U.S. Munitions List;
b.3. Polybutadiene-acrylic acid (PBAA);
b.4. Polybutadiene-acrylic acid -acrylonitrile (PBAN);
c. Other propellant additives and agents:
c.1. Butacene;
c.2. Triethylene glycol dinitrate (TEGDN);
c.3. 2-Nitrodiphenylamine;
c.4. Trimethylolethane trinitrate (TMETN);
c.5. Diethylene glycol dinitrate (DEGDN).
5A101 Telemetering and telecontrol equipment, including ground equipment, designed or modified for unmanned aerial vehicles or rocket systems (including ballistic missile systems, space launch vehicles, sounding rockets, cruise missile systems, target drones, and reconnaissance drones) capable of a maximum “range” equal to or greater than 300km.
The list of items controlled is contained in the ECCN heading.
5A101 does not control: 1. Telecontrol equipment specially designed to be used for remote control of recreational model planes, boats or vehicles and having an electric field strength of not more than 200 microvolts per meter at a distance of 500 meters;
2. Equipment designed or modified for manned aircraft or satellites;
3. Ground based equipment designed or modified for terrestrial or marine applications;
4. Equipment designed for commercial, civil, or safety of life (
Item 5A101 does not include items not designed or modified for unmanned aerial vehicles or rocket systems (including ballistic missile systems, space launch vehicles, sounding rockets, cruise missile systems, target drones, and reconnaissance drones) capable of a maximum “range” equal to or greater than 300km (
9A115 Apparatus, devices and vehicles, designed or modified for the transport, handling, control, activation and launching of rockets, missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles capable of achieving a “range” equal to or greater than 300 km. (These items are subject to the export licensing authority of the U.S. Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.
9A120 Complete unmanned aerial vehicles designed or modified to dispense an aerosol, capable of carrying elements of a payload in the form of a particulate or liquid other than fuel components of such vehicles of a volume greater than 20 liters, and having any of the following:
a. An autonomous flight control and navigation capability (
b. Capability of controlled-flight out of the direct vision range involving a human operator (
1. Item does not control model aircraft intended for recreational or competition purposes.
2. Item does not control UAVs designed to accept payloads (such as remote sensing equipment or communications equipment), that lack an aerosol dispensing system/mechanism.
1. Complete systems comprise those unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) already configured with, or already modified to incorporate, an aerosol delivery mechanism.
2. An aerosol consists of a particulate or liquid dispersed in the atmosphere. Examples of aerosols include liquid pesticides for crop dusting and dry chemicals for cloud seeding.
3. The phrase “elements of a payload in the form of a particulate or liquid” refers to the particulate or liquid being a part (possibly one of many parts) of the payload.
4. The phrase “particulate or liquid other than fuel components” was added to ensure such items as exhaust vapour (a byproduct of combustion in the form of a particulate) and liquid fuel and its components (
5. This item does not control UAVs that are exported without the aerosol dispensing system/mechanism included at time of export.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule; technical amendments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its regulations that address food and color additives and generally recognized as safe (GRAS) substances. The purpose of the amendments is to correct minor errors and inadvertent omissions in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The technical amendments made by this final rule are editorial in nature and are intended to provide accuracy and clarity to the agency's regulations.
Effective May 4, 2004.
Ellen M. Waldron, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-206), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 202-418-3089.
FDA is amending its regulations for parts 73, 172, 175, 176, 177, 178, 184, and 186 (21 CFR parts 73, 172, 175, 176, 177, 178, 184, and 186). FDA discovered that minor errors and omissions were inadvertently published in the CFR affecting its regulations that address food and color additives (parts 73, 172, 175, 176, 177, and 178) and GRAS substances (parts 184 and 186). This document makes the needed corrections.
The final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required. The changes addressed in this document are as follows:
1. In § 73.1(b)(2), the regulatory section citation for the identification of rosin and rosin derivatives is currently erroneously written as § 172.820 and is corrected to read § 172.615.
2. The listing for “oak moss” in the table in § 172.510(b) is being corrected. The entry under “Limitations” for this listing was amended to “Finished food thujone free
3. The agency is also correcting several Chemical Abstract Service registry numbers (CAS Reg. No.) that are incorrectly listed. The agency is correcting registry numbers found in § 73.3125
4. Finally, the agency is also correcting several typographical errors. Two misspelled terms are being corrected: “Hydroxycitronellol; 3,7-dimethyl-1,7-octanediol” in § 172.515
Publication of this document constitutes final action of these changes under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). FDA has determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary because these amendments are merely correcting nonsubstantive errors.
Color additives, Cosmetics, Drugs, Medical devices.
Food additives, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Adhesives, Food additives, Food packaging.
Food additives, Food packaging.
Food additives.
Food additives, Food packaging.
21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 343, 348, 351, 352, 355, 361, 362, 371, 379e.
21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 348, 371, 379e.
21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 379e.
21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 346, 348, 379e.
21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 379e.
21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 379e.
21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 371.
21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 371.
Cost Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary rules issued.
This document provides required notice of substantive rules issued by the Coast Guard and temporarily effective between January 1, 2004, and March 31, 2004, that were not published in the
This document lists temporary Coast Guard rules that became effective and were terminated between January 1, 2004, and March 31, 2004.
The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this notice. Documents indicated in this notice will be available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may electronically access the public docket for this notice on the Internet at
For questions on this notice contact LT Jeff Bray, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, telephone (202) 267-2830. For questions on viewing, or on submitting material to the docket, contact Andrea M. Jenkins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-0271.
Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations. Safety zones may be established for safety or environmental purposes. A safety zone may be stationary and described by fixed limits or it may be described as a zone around a vessel in motion. Security zones limit access to prevent injury or damage to vessels, ports, or waterfront facilities and may also describe a zone around a vessel in motion. Special local regulations are issued to enhance the safety of participants and spectators at regattas and other marine events. Timely publication of these rules in the
The following rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period from January 1, 2004, through March 31, 2004, unless otherwise indicated.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone encompassing all waters surrounding P/V HORIZON, to ensure the security of the vessel during inbound and outbound transits in the Port of Hampton Roads, and while the vessel is berthed at Nauticus International Terminal. The security zone extends in a 500-yard radius around P/V HORIZON and requires that all vessels transiting within 500 yards of P/V HORIZON operate only at the minimum speed necessary to navigate safely. No vessels are allowed within 100 yards of P/V HORIZON without authorization by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads, or his designated representative.
This rule is effective from April 24 through June 4, 2004.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket [CGD05-04-081] and are available for inspection or copying at USCG Marine Safety Office Hampton Roads, 200 Granby Street, Suite 700, Norfolk, Virginia, 23510, between 9:30 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
LT Mike Dolan, project officer, USCG Marine Safety Office Hampton Roads, at (757) 668-5590.
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. Publishing an NPRM, which would incorporate a comment period before a final rule was issued, would be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is needed to protect this vessel from potential security threats. For similar reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Following terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001, there is a heightened awareness that vessels or persons could launch subversive activity against passenger ships. These regulations are necessary to protect the vessel, its passengers, and its crew from these potential threats. The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone to ensure the vessel's safe inbound and outbound transits, and to protect the vessel while moored at Nauticus International Terminal.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone to ensure the safe transit and port call of the P/V HORIZON. The security zone will be effective while the P/V HORIZON transits inbound and outbound in the Port of Hampton Roads, and while it is berthed at Nauticus International Terminal. The security zone will extend in a 500 yard radius around P/V HORIZON. All vessels within 500 yards shall operate only at the minimum speed necessary to navigate safely. No vessels are allowed within 100 yards of P/V HORIZON without authorization by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads, or his designated representative. The security zone is effective from April 24 through June 4, 2004.
This rule will provide for increased security of the vessel and other vessels transiting in the area, and will allow the uninterrupted flow of commerce in the Port of Hampton Roads. Public notifications will be made prior to the transit via marine information broadcasts.
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).
Although this rule restricts access to the regulated area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The COTP may authorize access to the security zone; (ii) the security zone will be in effect for a limited duration; and (iii) the Coast Guard will make notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
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” include small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or government jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed under
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 an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This 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. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This regulation is a temporary security zone.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule.
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)
(d)
(2) The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of this security zone shall:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
(ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
(iii) Operate at the minimum safe speed within a 500-yard radius of P/V HORIZON.
(e) The COTP will enforce these zones and may enlist the aid and cooperation of any Federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency to assist in the enforcement of the regulation.
(f)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This final rule, issued pursuant to section 8(d) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and its regulations, requires manufacturers (including importers) of the following 15 chemicals to report certain unpublished health and safety data to EPA: 3H-1,2,4-triazole-3-thione, 5-amino-1,2-dihydro-; imidazo[4,5-d]imidazole-2,5(1H,3H)-dione, tetrahydro-; stannane, dimethylbis[(1-oxoneodecyl)oxy]-; benzene, 1,3,5-tribromo-2-(2-propenyloxy)-; 1-triazene,1,3-diphenyl-; benzenamine, 3-chloro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)-; and 9 indium compounds. The Interagency Testing Committee (ITC), established under section 4(e) of TSCA to recommend chemicals and chemical mixtures to EPA for priority testing consideration, amends the TSCA section 4(e)
In addition, in order to display the approval of the information collection requirements contained in this final rule as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), EPA is amending the table of PRA approval numbers that appear in 40 CFR part 9.
This final rule is effective on June 3, 2004. For purposes of judicial review, this rule shall be promulgated at 1 p.m. eastern daylight/standard time on May 18, 2004. (See 40 CFR 23.5)
A request to withdraw a chemical from this rule pursuant to 40 CFR 716.105(c) must be received on or before May 18, 2004. (See Unit IV. of the
The reporting described in Unit III.B. is required by August 2, 2004. Any person who manufactures or imports or who proposes to manufacture or import the listed substance from June 3, 2004 to August 2, 2004 must inform (by submitting a list) EPA of any studies initiated during the period from June 3, 2004 to August 2, 2004 within 30 days of their initiation, but in no case later than August 30, 2004. In addition, if any such person has submitted lists of studies that were ongoing or initiated during the period from June 3, 2004 to August 2, 2004 to EPA, such person must submit a copy of each study within 30 days after its completion, regardless of the study's completion date. See 40 CFR 716.60 and 716.65.
Submit your withdrawal request, identified by docket ID number OPPT-2003-0028, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
•
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture (defined by statute to include import) any of the chemical substances that are listed in § 716.120(a) and (d) of the regulatory text of this document. Entities potentially affected by this action may include, but are not limited to:
• Chemical manufacturers (including importers), (NAICS 325, 324110), e.g., persons who manufacture (defined by statute to include import) one or more of the subject chemical substances.
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. 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 technical person listed under
In addition to EDOCKET (
Do not submit this information to EPA through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, 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 claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 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. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
EPA is issuing a final TSCA section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting rule which will require manufacturers (including importers) of 15 chemicals on the ITC's TSCA section 4(e)
EPA promulgated the model Health and Safety Data Reporting rule under section 8(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2607(d)), and it is codified at 40 CFR part 716. EPA uses this TSCA section 8(d) model rule to quickly gather current information on chemicals. The TSCA section 8(d) model rule requires past, current, and prospective manufacturers, importers, and (if specified by EPA in a particular notice or rule under TSCA section 8(d)) processors of listed chemicals to submit to EPA copies and lists of unpublished health and safety studies on the listed chemicals that they manufacture, import, or (if specified by EPA in a particular notice or rule under TSCA section 8(d)) process. These studies provide EPA with useful information and have provided significant support for EPA's decisionmaking under TSCA sections 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9.
The TSCA section 8(d) model rule provides for the addition of TSCA section 4(e)
EPA is taking this action pursuant to TSCA section 8(d) and 40 CFR 716.105(b) and (c), which authorize this action to amend the TSCA 8 (d) Health and Safety Data Reporting rule.
In this document, EPA is adding 15 chemicals to the TSCA section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting rule. This document addresses the request of the TSCA ITC in its 43
Listed in this unit are the reporting requirements for the 15 chemicals added by this amendment to the TSCA section 8(d) model rule. (The specific types of health and safety studies that must be reported for each of the 15 chemicals added to the Health and Safety Data Reporting rule as a result of this document can be found in Unit III.C.)
1. Persons who, in the 10 years preceding the date a substance is listed, either have proposed to manufacture or import or have manufactured or imported the listed substance must submit to EPA, during the 60-day reporting period specified in § 716.65 and according to the reporting schedule set forth at § 716.60, a copy of each specified type of health and safety study which is in their possession at the time the substance is listed.
2. Persons who, at the time the substance is listed, propose to manufacture or import; or are manufacturing or importing the listed substance must submit to EPA during the 60-day reporting period specified in § 716.65 and according to the reporting schedule set forth at § 716.60:
i. A copy of each specified type of health and safety study which is in their possession at the time the substance is listed.
ii. A list of the specified type of health and safety studies known to them but not in their possession at the time the substance is listed.
iii. A list of the specified type of health and safety studies that are ongoing at the time the substance is listed and are being conducted by or for them.
iv. A list of each specified type of health and safety study that is initiated after the date the substance is listed and is conducted by or for them.
v. A copy of each specified type of health and safety study that was previously listed as ongoing or subsequently initiated (i.e., listed in accordance with reporting requirements in Unit III.B.2.iii. and 2.iv., respectively) and is now complete—regardless of completion date.
3. Persons who, after the time the substance is listed, propose to manufacture or import the listed substance must submit to EPA during the reporting period specified in § 716.65 and according to the reporting schedule set forth at § 716.60:
i. A copy of each specified type of health and safety study which is in their possession at the time they propose to manufacture or import the listed substance.
ii. A list of each specified type of health and safety studies known to them but not in their possession at the time they propose to manufacture or import the listed substance.
iii. A list of the specified type of health and safety studies that are ongoing at the time they propose to manufacture or import the listed substance, and are being conducted by or for them.
iv. A list of each specified type of health and safety study that is initiated after the time they propose to manufacture or import the listed substance, and is conducted by or for them.
v. A copy of each specified type of health and safety study that was previously listed as ongoing or subsequently initiated (i.e., listed in accordance with reporting requirements in Unit III.B.3.iii. and 3.iv., respectively) and is now complete—regardless of the completion date.
The reporting described in Unit III.B. is required by August 2, 2004. Any person who manufactures or imports or who proposes to manufacture or import the listed substance from June 3, 2004 to August 2, 2004 must inform (by submitting a list) EPA of any studies initiated during the period from June 3, 2004 to August 2, 2004 within 30 days of their initiation, but in no case later than August 30, 2004. In addition, if any such person has submitted lists of studies that were ongoing or initiated during the period from June 3, 2004 to August 2, 2004 to EPA, such person must submit a copy of each study within 30 days after its completion, regardless of the study's completion date. See 40 CFR 716.60 and 716.65.
Detailed guidance for reporting unpublished health and safety data is provided at 40 CFR part 716. Also found there are explanations of the reporting exemptions.
Pursuant to § 716.20(b)(5) and § 716.50, the types of environmental fate, health, and/or environmental effects studies that must be reported and the chemical grade/purity requirements that must be met or exceeded in individual studies for the 15 chemicals added to the Health and Safety Data Reporting rule as a result of this document are as follows:
For 3H-1,2,4-triazole-3-thione, 5-amino-1,2-dihydro- and imidazo[4,5-d]imidazole-2,5-(1H,3H)-dione, tetrahydro-, all unpublished environmental effects studies and health effects studies on pharmacokinetics, genotoxicity, subchronic toxicity, immunotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive effects, and developmental toxicity where the purity of 3H-1,2,4-triazole-3-thione, 5-amino-1,2-dihydro- orimidazo[4,5-d]imidazole-2,5-(1H,3H)-dione, tetrahydro- is greater than or equal to 90% of the test substance by weight must be submitted. All other studies are exempt at this time from reporting.
For benzenamine, 3-chloro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)-, all unpublished environmental effects studies including bioconcentration, environmental fate studies on biodegradation, and health effects studies on pharmacokinetics, subchronic toxicity, mutagenicity, reproductive effects, developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity where the purity of benzenamine, 3-chloro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)- is greater than or equal to 90% of the test substance by weight must be submitted. All other studies are exempt at this time from reporting.
For stannane, dimethylbis[(1-oxoneodecyl)oxy]-, all unpublished environmental effects studies including bioconcentration, environmental fate studies on hydrolysis and biodegradation and health effects studies on pharmacokinetics, subchronic toxicity, mutagenicity, neurotoxicity, reproductive effects, developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity where the purity of stannane, dimethylbis[(1-oxoneodecyl)oxy]- is greater than or equal to 90% of the test substance by weight must be submitted. All other studies are exempt at this time from reporting.
For benzene, 1,3,5-tribromo-2-(2-propenyloxy)-, all unpublished environmental effects studies including bioconcentration, environmental fate studies on biodegradation and health effects studies on pharmacokinetics, subchronic toxicity, neurotoxicity, reproductive effects, developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity where the purity of benzene, 1,3,5-tribromo-2-(2-propenyloxy)- is greater than or equal to 90% of the test substance by weight must be submitted. All other studies are exempt at this time from reporting.
For 1-triazene, 1,3-diphenyl-, all unpublished health effects studies on pharmacokinetics, genotoxicity, subchronic and chronic toxicity, reproductive effects, and developmental toxicity where the purity of 1-triazene, 1,3-diphenyl- is greater than or equal to 90% of the test substance by weight must be submitted. All other studies are exempt at this time from reporting.
For the 9 chemicals in the indium compound category, all unpublished health effects studies on pharmacokinetics, genotoxicity, subchronic and chronic toxicity, reproductive effects, and developmental toxicity where the purity of the indium compound is greater than or equal to 90% of the test substance by weight must be submitted. All other studies are exempt at this time from reporting.
Only 5 of the 15 compounds in this document were located in EPA's Chemical Update System (CUS) utilizing the supplied CAS numbers, yielding 6 companies producing these chemicals at 6 sites. Because the threshold for reporting to CUS under the Inventory Update Rule is 10,000 pounds, and because there is no requirement that inorganic chemicals be reported to CUS (the majority of the indium compounds are inorganic), EPA assumed that one manufacturer exists per chemical to account for the possibility that there may be manufacturers producing these chemicals that are subject to this rule but that were not captured by CUS (Ref. 7).
EPA estimates of the total costs and burdens to industry and the Federal Government, i.e., EPA, for establishing TSCA section 8(d) reporting requirements for the 15 chemicals (Ref. 7) are as follows:
1. Site identification: $2,557
2. Site file searches: $3,120
It is estimated that the annual cost to EPA will be 0.26 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) or 541 hours annually. At an estimated $91,874 per FTE, the total of 0.26 FTEs will cost EPA $23,887.
As indicated in § 716.20(b)(5), this final rule specifies the specific types of health and/or environmental effects studies that must be reported and the chemical grade/purity requirements that must be met or exceeded in individual studies. In order to provide a single location for these chemical or chemical category specific reporting requirements, EPA is establishing a new § 716.21. The chemicals will continue to be listed in § 716.120, with a reference to the specific reporting requirement described in § 716.21.
As specified in § 716.105(c), EPA may, in its discretion, remove a chemical substance, mixture, or category of chemical substances from this rule for good cause prior to the effective date of this rule. Any person who believes that the reporting required by this rule is not warranted for a chemical listed in this rule, must submit to EPA detailed reasons for that belief. You must submit your request to EPA on or before May 18, 2004 and in accordance with the instructions provided in § 716.105(c), which are briefly summarized here. In addition, to ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number OPPT-2003-0028. If the Administrator withdraws a chemical substance, mixture, or category of chemical substances from the amendment, in accordance with 40 CFR 716.105(c), a
The official docket for this rule has been established under docket ID number OPPT-2003-0028. The official public docket is available for review as specified in
1. ITC. 2000. Forty-Third Report of the ITC.
2. ITC. 2002. Fiftieth Report of the ITC.
3. ITC. 2003. Fifty-first Report of the ITC.
4. ITC. 2001. Forty-Eighth Report of the ITC.
5. ITC. 2001. Forty-Seventh Report of the ITC.
6. EPA. 2003. Letter from John Walker to Charles M. Auer correcting the CAS No. for indium tin oxide in the 51
7. EPA. 2003. TSCA Section 8(d): Economic Impact Analysis For Adding 15 Chemicals from the 43
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted actions under TSCA section 8(d) related to the Health and Safety Data Reporting rule from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, entitled
The information collection requirements contained in TSCA section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting rules have already been approved by OMB under the provisions of PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
EPA estimates that the information collection activities related to health and safety data reporting for all chemicals in this final rule will result in an annual public reporting burden of 20 hours per chemical, for a total of 300 hours for the 15 chemicals (Ref. 7). As defined by the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.3(b), “burden” means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal Agency. This includes the time needed to: Review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Under PRA, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection request unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and included on the related collection instrument. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 to list the OMB approval number for the information collection requirements contained in this final rule. This listing of the OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfies the display requirements of PRA and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. This ICR was previously subject to public notice and comment prior to OMB approval, and given the technical nature of the table, EPA finds that further notice and comment is unnecessary. As a result, EPA finds that there is “good cause” under section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), to amend this table without further notice and comment.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
For this final rule, EPA has analyzed the potential small business impacts using the size standards established under the default definition of “small business” established under section 601(3) of RFA, which basically uses the definition used in section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, under which the SBA establishes small business size standards for each industry sector. (13 CFR 121.201). The SBA size standards, which are primarily intended to determine whether a business entity is eligible for government programs and preferences reserved for small businesses (13 CFR 121.101), “seek to ensure that a concern that meets a specific size standard is not dominant in its field of operation.” (13 CFR 121.102(b)). See section 632(a)(1) of the Small Business Act.
For the chemical manufacturers potentially impacted by this rule, an ultimate corporate parent with 1,000 or fewer employees is considered a small business. Of the 6 companies identified in CUS as manufacturers of the chemicals covered by this rule (see the economic analysis for this rule (Ref. 7) as summarized in Unit III.D.), none meet the SBA definition of small business. Given these results, EPA concludes that there is not a significant adverse economic impact on these small entities as a result of this final rule.
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. In addition, EPA has determined that this rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Accordingly, the rule is not subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205.
Based on EPA's experience with past TSCA section 8(d) rules, State, local, and tribal governments have not been impacted by these rules, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or tribal government will be impacted by this rule. As a result, these rules are not subject to the requirements in Executive Order 13132, entitled
Executive Order 13045, entitled
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Section 12(d) of NTTAA directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve special considerations of environmental justice-related issues pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Health and safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 135
15 U.S.C. 2607(d).
(a) Health and safety studies reportable under part 716 for the following chemical substances, mixtures, or categories of chemical substances, as listed in § 716.120, must be submitted or listed only as specified in this section:
(1) For 3H-1,2,4-triazole-3-thione, 5-amino-1,2-dihydro- and imidazo[4,5-d]imidazole-2,5-(1H,3H)-dione, tetrahydro-, all unpublished environmental effects studies and health effects studies on pharmacokinetics, genotoxicity, subchronic toxicity, immunotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive effects, and developmental toxicity where the purity of 3H-1,2,4-triazole-3-thione, 5-amino-1,2-dihydro- or imidazo[4,5-d]imidazole-2,5-(1H,3H)-dione, tetrahydro- is greater than or equal to 90% of the test substance by weight must be submitted.
(2) For benzenamine, 3-chloro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)-, all unpublished environmental effects studies including bioconcentration, environmental fate studies on biodegradation, and health effects studies on pharmacokinetics, subchronic toxicity, mutagenicity, reproductive effects, and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity where the purity of benzenamine, 3-chloro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)- is greater than or equal to 90% of the test substance by weight must be submitted.
(3) For stannane, dimethylbis[(1-oxoneodecyl)oxy]-, all unpublished environmental effects studies including bioconcentration, environmental fate studies on hydrolysis and biodegradation and health effects studies on pharmacokinetics, subchronic toxicity, mutagenicity, neurotoxicity, reproductive effects, and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity where the purity of stannane, dimethylbis[(1-oxoneodecyl)oxy]- is greater than or equal to 90% of the test substance by weight must be submitted.
(4) For benzene, 1,3,5-tribromo-2-(2-propenyloxy)-, all unpublished environmental effects studies including bioconcentration, environmental fate studies on biodegradation and health effects studies on pharmacokinetics, subchronic toxicity, neurotoxicity, reproductive effects, and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity where the purity of benzene, 1,3,5-tribromo-2-(2-propenyloxy)- is greater than or equal to 90% of the test substance by weight must be submitted.
(5) For 1-triazene, 1,3-diphenyl-, all unpublished health effects studies on pharmacokinetics, genotoxicity, subchronic and chronic toxicity, reproductive effects, and developmental toxicity where the purity of 1-triazene,
(6) For the 9 chemicals in the indium compound category, all unpublished health effects studies on pharmacokinetics, genotoxicity, subchronic and chronic toxicity, reproductive effects, and developmental toxicity where the purity of the indium compound is greater than or equal to 90% of the test substance by weight must be submitted.
(b) [Reserved]
(a) * * *
(d) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; annual management measures and sport fishing regulations for Area 2A Pacific halibut fisheries, and final rule; changes to the Catch Sharing Plan.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), on behalf of the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), publishes annual management measures promulgated as regulations by the IPHC and accepted by the Secretary of State governing the Pacific halibut fishery. The AA also announces modifications to the Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) for Area 2A and implementing regulations for 2004. These actions are intended to enhance the conservation of Pacific halibut and further the goals and objectives of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council).
The rule is effective May 1 2004, except for amendments to § 300.63, which are effective June 3, 2004
Copies of the CSP and background documents for this action are available at NMFS Northwest Region, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070. The CSP is also available on the Northwest Region home page at
Jamie Goen or Yvonne deReynier, 206-526-6150.
This final rule also is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register′s website at
The IPHC manages Pacific halibut in waters off Alaska, British Columbia, and the U.S. West Coast. On January 20-23, 2004, the IPHC held its annual meeting in Juneau, AK, and recommended its bilateral regulations for 2004. The Secretary of State of the United States has accepted the 2004 IPHC regulations under section 4 of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act (Halibut Act, 16 U.S.C. 773-773k). For U.S. waters, NMFS works with the North Pacific and Pacific Fishery Management Councils to set area-specific fishery management measures. IPHC refers to waters off the U.S. West Coast as “Area 2A.″
On February 23, 2004, NMFS published a proposed rule to implement 2004 revisions to the Area 2A CSP for Pacific halibut (69 FR 8162). A complete description of the Pacific Council recommended changes to the CSP and management measures were published in the proposed rule for this action. NMFS requested comment on the proposed rule through March 9, 2004. On February 27, 2004, NMFS published a final rule (69 FR 9231) to implement the IPHC′s recommendations, to announce IPHC′s approval of the Area 2A CSP, and to announce fishery regulations for U.S. waters off Alaska and fishery regulations for treaty commercial and ceremonial and subsistence fisheries and some regulations for non-treaty commercial fisheries for U.S. waters off the West Coast. None of the Pacific Council′s proposed 2004 revisions to the CSP addressed either the treaty fisheries or the non-treaty commercial fisheries.
This final rule implements the Area 2A Pacific halibut CSP for 2004 and the Area 2A management measures for 2004. These management measures are effective until superceded by the 2005 management measures that NMFS will publish in the
During the comment period on the proposed rule for implementing the Area 2A CSP, NMFS received two letters and one e-mail of comment. The letters are addressed below in the section on the CSP for Area 2A.
The email generally objected to most of the proposals for changes to the CSP, referred to halibut as an overfished species under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and suggested shortening fishing seasons, cutting fishing quotas and establishing marine sanctuaries. Pacific halibut is an abundant, healthy stock and is not overfished. The IPHC establishes overall catch limits for halibut. NMFS regulations are intended to give fisheries access to the Area 2A total allowable catch (TAC) and to the various subquotas for sport, commercial, and ceremonial and subsistence fisheries in Area 2A. Where halibut fishing activities may affect overfished groundfish stocks, halibut fishing is restricted to protect those stocks. For example, sport and commercial fisheries off the U.S. West Coast are prohibited within fishery-specific Groundfish Conservation Areas (GCAs) implemented by this action.
Marine sanctuaries are created under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431-1445). This action is taken under the authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act, which does not authorize the establishment of marine sanctuaries. This action does, however, establish closed areas requirements for the sport and commercial halibut fisheries to reduce harvest of overfished rockfish. Sport fishing for halibut off the Washington coast is prohibited within the Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA), implemented herein at Section 24(4)(b)(ii)(C). Commercial fishing for halibut off the U.S. West Coast and sport fishing for halibut off the Oregon coast are prohibited within the non-trawl and recreational (sport) Rockfish Conservation Areas, respectively, implemented herein at Section 27.
The Pacific Council′s Area 2A CSP allocates the halibut catch limit for Area 2A among treaty Indian, non-treaty commercial, and non-treaty sport fisheries in and off Washington, Oregon, and California. Those allocations were described in the proposed rule for this action (69 FR 8162, February 23, 2004). For 2004, the Pacific Council recommended changes to the CSP to modify the Pacific halibut fisheries in Area 2A in 2004 and beyond pursuant to recommendations from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). These changes to the CSP will: provide more flexibility for Washington inseason sport fishery management;
The ODFW held a public workshop (after the IPHC set the Area 2A quota) in Newport, OR, on January 28, 2004, to develop recommendations on the opening dates of Oregon sport fisheries. WDFW held a public workshop in Olympia, WA on January 30, 2004, to develop recommendations on the opening dates of Washington sport fisheries. The WDFW and ODFW sent letters to NMFS providing the following recommendations on the opening dates and season structure for managing the sport fisheries consistent with the CSP.
WDFW recommended a May 6 to July 24 season for eastern Puget Sound and a May 27 to August 14 season for western Puget Sound, 5 days per week (closed Tuesday and Wednesday). The recommended number of fishing days is based on an analysis of past harvest patterns in this fishery and meets the requirements of the CSP for the overall Puget Sound sport fishery subarea. For the Washington North Coast subarea, WDFW has recommended a season opening May 11 and continuing until the May sub-quota is taken, 5 days per week (closed Sunday and Monday), and a second season opening June 15 and continuing until the remaining quota is projected to be taken, 5 days per week (closed Sunday and Monday). For the Washington South Coast subarea, WDFW has recommended a season opening May 2 and continuing until the quota is taken, 5 days per week (closed Friday and Saturday) in the offshore area and 7 days per week in the nearshore area. WDFW recommendations for the Puget Sound, North Coast and South Coast Washington subareas meet the requirements of the CSP.
Both WDFW and ODFW have recommended opening the Columbia River subarea on May 1 and continuing the season until the quota has been reached, 7 days per week. This recommended season meets the requirements of the CSP.
ODFW recommended starting the nearshore fishery in the Oregon Central Coast subarea, on May 1 and continuing the season until the sub-quota for that fishery is taken, 7 days per week. For the all-depth fishery in that subarea, ODFW recommended a 12 day spring season of May 13-15, 20-22, 27-29, and June 10-12, based on an analysis of past harvest rates. If the spring season does not take the entire spring sub-quota for this subarea, ODFW recommended these additional potential opening dates: June 25, 26, and July 9, 10, 23, and 24. ODFW further recommended re-opening the all-depth fishery on Friday, August 6 to take the summer sub-quota for this subarea and if sufficient quota remains. This summer fishery would remain open every other Friday and Saturday until the quota is taken, or October 31st, whichever occurs first. These recommendations meet the requirements of the CSP for this subarea.
For the southernmost subarea, south of Humbug Mountain, Oregon, ODFW recommended opening this subarea on May 1 and continuing the season until October 31, 7 days per week. This recommended season meets the requirements of the CSP.
NMFS is implementing sport fishing management measures in Area 2A based on recommendations from the states in accordance with the CSP.
For the reasons stated herein, NMFS concurs with Pacific Council's recommendations and hereby announces the following changes to the 2004 annual halibut management measures at 69 FR 9231 (February 27, 2004) to read as follows:
1. On page 9238, in the
(4) In all waters off California, Oregon, and Washington:
(a) The total allowable catch of halibut shall be limited to 272,942 lb (123.8 mt) in waters off Washington and 297,029 pounds (134.7 metric tons) in waters off California and Oregon;
(b) The sport fishing subareas, subquotas, fishing dates, and daily bag limits are as follows, except as modified under the inseason actions in Section 25. All sport fishing in Area 2A is managed on a “port of landing” basis, whereby any halibut landed into a port counts toward the quota for the area in which that port is located, and the regulations governing the area of landing apply, regardless of the specific area of catch.
(i) In Puget Sound and the U.S. waters in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, east of a line extending from 48°17′30″ N. lat., 124°23′70″ W. long. north to 48°24′10″ N. lat., 124°23′70″ W. long., there is no quota. This area is managed by setting a season that is projected to result in a catch of 76,220 lb (34.6 mt).
(A) The fishing season in eastern Puget Sound (east of 123°49′30″ W. long.) is May 6 through July 24 and the fishing season in western Puget Sound (west of 123°49′30″ W. long.) is May 27 through August 14, 5 days a week (Thursday through Monday).
(B) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.
(ii) The quota for landings into ports in the area off the north Washington coast, west of the line described in paragraph (4)(b)(i) of this section and north of the Queets River (47°31′42″ N. lat.), is 126,857 lb (57.5 mt).
(A) The fishing seasons are:
(
(
(B) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.
(C) A “C-shaped″ yelloweye rockfish conservation area southwest of Cape Flattery is closed to sport fishing for halibut. This area is defined by the following coordinates in the order listed:
48°18′ N. lat.; 125°18′ W. long.;
48°18′ N. lat.; 124°59′ W. long.;
48°11′ N. lat.; 124°59′ W. long.;
48°11′ N. lat.; 125°11′ W. long.;
48°04′ N. lat.; 125°11′ W. long.;
48°04′ N. lat.; 124°59′ W. long.;
48°00′ N. lat.; 124°59′ W. long.;
48°00′ N. lat.; 125°18′ W. long.;
and connecting back to 48°18′ N. lat.; 125°18′ W. long.
(iii) The quota for landings into ports in the area between the Queets River, WA (47°31′42″ N. lat.) and Leadbetter Point, WA (46°38′10″ N. lat.), is 61,565 lb (28 mt).
(A) The fishing season commences on May 2 and continues 5 days a week (Sunday through Thursday) in all waters, except that in the area from Queets River south to 47°00′00″ N. lat.
(B) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.
(iv) The quota for landings into ports in the area between Leadbetter Point, WA (46°38′10″ N. lat.) and Cape Falcon, OR (45°46′00″ N. lat.), is 14,241 lb (6.5 mt).
(A) The fishing season commences on May 1, and continues every day through September 30, or until 14,241 lb (6.5 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the area is closed by the Commission, whichever occurs first.
(B) The daily bag limit is the first halibut taken, per person, of 32 inches (81.3 cm) or greater in length.
(v) The quota for landings into ports in the area off Oregon between Cape Falcon (45°46′00″ N. lat.) and Humbug Mountain (42°40′30″ N. lat.), is 282,178 lb (128 mt).
(A) The fishing seasons are:
(
(1) 45°47.07′N. lat., 124°04.21′W. long.;
(2) 45°44.34′N. lat., 124°05.09′W. long.;
(3) 45°40.64′N. lat., 124°04.90′W. long.;
(4) 45°33.00′N. lat., 124°04.46′W. long.;
(5) 45°32.27′N. lat., 124°04.74′W. long.;
(6) 45°29.26′N. lat., 124°04.22′W. long.;
(7) 45°19.99′N. lat., 124°04.62′W. long.;
(8) 45°17.50′N. lat., 124°04.91′W. long.;
(9) 45°11.29′N. lat., 124°05.19′W. long.;
(10) 45°05.79′N. lat., 124°05.40′W. long.;
(11) 45°05.07′N. lat., 124°05.93′W. long.;
(12) 45°01.70′N. lat., 124°06.53′W. long.;
(13) 44°58.75′N. lat., 124°07.14′W. long.;
(14) 44°51.28′N. lat., 124°10.21′W. long.;
(15) 44°49.49′N. lat., 124°10.89′W. long.;
(16) 44°44.96′N. lat., 124°14.39′W. long.;
(17) 44°43.44′N. lat., 124°14.78′W. long.;
(18) 44°42.27′N. lat., 124°13.81′W. long.;
(19) 44°41.68′N. lat., 124°15.38′W. long.;
(20) 44°34.87′N. lat., 124°15.80′W. long.;
(21) 44°33.74′N. lat., 124°14.43′W. long.;
(22) 44°27.66′N. lat., 124°16.99′W. long.;
(23) 44°19.13′N. lat., 124°19.22′W. long.;
(24) 44°15.35′N. lat., 124°17.37′W. long.;
(25) 44°14.38′N. lat., 124°17.78′W. long.;
(26) 44°12.80′N. lat., 124°17.18′W. long.;
(27) 44°09.23′N. lat., 124°15.96′W. long.;
(28) 44°08.38′N. lat., 124°16.80′W. long.;
(29) 44°01.18′N. lat., 124°15.42′W. long.;
(30) 43°51.60′N. lat., 124°14.68′W. long.;
(31) 43°42.66′N. lat., 124°15.46′W. long.;
(32) 43°40.49′N. lat., 124°15.74′W. long.;
(33) 43°38.77′N. lat., 124°15.64′W. long.;
(34) 43°34.52′N. lat., 124°16.73′W. long.;
(35) 43°28.82′N. lat., 124°19.52′W. long.;
(36) 43°23.91′N. lat., 124°24.28′W. long.;
(37) 43°17.96′N. lat., 124°28.81′W. long.;
(38) 43°16.75′N. lat., 124°28.42′W. long.;
(39) 43°13.98′N. lat., 124°31.99′W. long.;
(40) 43°13.71′N. lat., 124°33.25′W. long.;
(41) 43°12.26′N. lat., 124°34.16′W. long.;
(42) 43°10.96′N. lat., 124°32.34′W. long.;
(43) 43°05.65′N. lat., 124°31.52′W. long.;
(44) 42°59.66′N. lat., 124°32.58′W. long.;
(45) 42°54.97′N. lat., 124°36.99′W. long.;
(46) 42°53.81′N. lat., 124°38.58′W. long.;
(47) 42°49.14′N. lat., 124°39.92′W. long.;
(48) 42°46.47′N. lat., 124°38.65′W. long.;
(49) 42°45.60′N. lat., 124°39.04′W. long.;
(50) 42°44.79′N. lat., 124°37.96′W. long.;
(51) 42°45.00′N. lat., 124°36.39′W. long.;
(52) 42°44.14′N. lat., 124°35.16′W. long.;
(53) 42°42.15′N. lat., 124°32.82′W. long.; and
(54) 42°38.82′N. lat., 124°31.09′W. long.;
(
(
(B) The daily bag limit is the first halibut taken, per person, of 32 inches (81.3 cm) or greater in length.
(vi) In the area south of Humbug Mountain, Oregon (42°40′30″ N. lat.) and off the California coast, there is no quota. This area is managed on a season that is projected to result in a catch of less than 8,911 lb (4 mt).
(A) The fishing season will commence on May 1 and continue every day through October 31.
(B) The daily bag limit is the first halibut taken, per person, of 32 inches (81.3 cm) or greater in length.
(c) The Commission shall determine and announce closing dates for any area in which the subquotas in this Section are estimated to have been taken.
(d) When the Commission has determined that a subquota under paragraph (4)(b) of this section is estimated to have been taken, and has announced a date on which the season will close, no person shall sport fish for halibut in that area after that date for the rest of the year, unless a reopening of that area for sport halibut fishing is scheduled in accordance with the Catch Sharing Plan for Area 2A, or announced by the Commission.
(10) The possession limit for halibut on land in Area 2A is two daily bag limits.
2. On page 9238, in the
(1) The Regional Administrator, NMFS Northwest Region, after consultation with the Chairman of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the Commission Executive Director, and the Fisheries Director(s) of the affected state(s), or their designees, is authorized to modify regulations during the season after making the following determinations.
(a) The action is necessary to allow allocation objectives to be met.
(b) The action will not result in exceeding the catch limit for the area.
(c) If any of the sport fishery subareas north of Cape Falcon, OR, are not projected to utilize their respective quotas by September 30, NMFS may take inseason action to transfer any projected unused quota to another Washington sport subarea.
(d) If any of the sport fishery subareas south of Leadbetter Point, WA, are not projected to utilize their respective quotas by their season ending dates, NMFS may take inseason action to transfer any projected unused quota to another Oregon sport subarea.
(2) Flexible inseason management provisions include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Modification of sport fishing periods;
(b) Modification of sport fishing bag limits;
(c) Modification of sport fishing size limits;
(d) Modification of sport fishing days per calendar week; and
(e) Modification of subarea quotas north of Cape Falcon, OR.
(3) Notice procedures.
(a) Actions taken under this section will be published in the
(b) Actual notice of inseason management actions will be provided by a telephone hotline administered by the Northwest Region, NMFS, at 206-526-6667 or 800-662-9825 (May through October) and by U.S. Coast Guard broadcasts. These broadcasts are announced on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz at frequent intervals. The announcements designate the channel or frequency over which the notice to mariners will be immediately broadcast. Since provisions of these regulations may be altered by inseason actions, sport fishers should monitor either the telephone hotline or U.S. Coast Guard broadcasts for current information for the area in which they are fishing.
(4) Effective dates.
(a) Any action issued under this section is effective on the date specified in the publication or at the time that the action is filed for public inspection with the Office of the
(b) If time allows, pursuant to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, NMFS will invite public comment prior to the effective date of any inseason action filed with the
(c) Any inseason action issued under this section will remain in effect until the stated expiration date or until rescinded, modified, or superseded. However, no inseason action has any effect beyond the end of the calendar year in which it is issued.
(5) Availability of data. The Regional Administrator will compile, in aggregate form, all data and other information relevant to the action being taken and will make them available for public review during normal office hours at the Northwest Regional Office, NMFS, Sustainable Fisheries Division, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA.
3. On page 9238, in the
(1) A vessel that fishes in Area 2A may participate in only one of the following three fisheries in Area 2A:
(a) The sport fishery under Section 24;
(b) The commercial directed fishery for halibut during the fishing period(s) established in Section 8 and/or the incidental retention of halibut during the primary sablefish fishery described at 50 CFR 660.323(a)(2); or
(c) The incidental catch fishery during the salmon troll fishery as authorized in Section 8.
(2) No person shall fish for halibut in the sport fishery in Area 2A under Section 24 from a vessel that has been used during or that has been issued a permit for the same calendar year for commercial halibut fishing in Area 2A.
(3) No person shall fish for halibut in the directed commercial halibut fishery during the fishing periods established in Section 8 and/or retain halibut incidentally taken in the primary sablefish fishery in Area 2A from a vessel that has been used during the same calendar year for the incidental catch fishery during the salmon troll fishery as authorized in Section 8.
(4) No person shall fish for halibut in the directed commercial halibut fishery and/or retain halibut incidentally taken in the primary sablefish fishery in Area 2A from a vessel that, during the same calendar year, has been used in the sport halibut fishery in Area 2A or that is licensed for the sport charter halibut fishery in Area 2A.
(5) No person shall retain halibut in the salmon troll fishery in Area 2A as authorized under Section 8 taken on a vessel that, during the same calendar year, has been used in the sport halibut fishery in Area 2A, or that is licensed for the sport charter halibut fishery in Area 2A.
(6) No person shall retain halibut in the salmon troll fishery in Area 2A as authorized under Section 8 taken on a vessel that, during the same calendar year, has been used in the directed commercial halibut fishery during the fishing periods established in Section 8 and/or retained halibut incidentally taken in the primary sablefish fishery for Area 2A or that is licensed to participate in these commercial fisheries during the fishing periods established in Section 8 in Area 2A.
4. On page 9238, in the
Non-treaty commercial vessels operating in the directed commercial fishery for halibut in Area 2A must fish outside of a closed area, known as the Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA), that extends along the coast from the U.S./Canada border south to 40°10′ N. lat. Coordinates for the closed area are as follows:
(1) Between the U.S./Canada border and 46°16′ N. lat., the eastern boundary of the RCA is the shoreline.
(2) Between 46°16′ N. lat. and 40°10′ N. lat., the eastern, inshore boundary of the RCA approximates the 30 fm (55 m) depth contour. The boundary is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
(1) 46°16.00′ N. lat., 124°13.13′ W. long.;
(2) 46°16.00′ N. lat., 124°13.05′ W. long.;
(3) 46°07.00′ N. lat., 124°07.01′ W. long.;
(4) 45°55.95′ N. lat., 124°02.23′ W. long.;
(5) 45°54.53′ N. lat., 124°02.57′ W. long.;
(6) 45°50.65′ N. lat., 124°01.62′ W. long.;
(7) 45°48.20′ N. lat., 124°02.16′ W. long.;
(8) 45°43.47′ N. lat., 124°01.28′ W. long.;
(9) 45°40.48′ N. lat., 124°01.03′ W. long.;
(10) 45°39.04′ N. lat., 124°01.68′ W. long.;
(11) 45°35.48′ N. lat., 124°01.89′ W. long.;
(12) 45°29.81′ N. lat., 124°02.45′ W. long.;
(13) 45°27.96′ N. lat., 124°01.89′ W. long.;
(14) 45°27.22′ N. lat., 124°02.67′ W. long.;
(15) 45°24.20′ N. lat., 124°02.94′ W. long.;
(16) 45°20.60′ N. lat., 124°01.74′ W. long.;
(17) 45°16.44′ N. lat., 124°03.22′ W. long.;
(18) 45°13.63′ N. lat., 124°02.70′ W. long.;
(19) 45°11.04′ N. lat., 124°03.59′ W. long.;
(20) 45°08.55′ N. lat., 124°03.47′ W. long.;
(21) 45°02.82′ N. lat., 124°04.64′ W. long.;
(22) 44°58.06′ N. lat., 124°05.03′ W. long.;
(23) 44°53.97′ N. lat., 124°06.92′ W. long.;
(24) 44°48.89′ N. lat., 124°07.04′ W. long.;
(25) 44°46.94′ N. lat., 124°08.25′ W. long.;
(26) 44°42.72′ N. lat., 124°08.98′ W. long.;
(27) 44°38.16′ N. lat., 124°11.48′ W. long.;
(28) 44°33.38′ N. lat., 124°11.54′ W. long.;
(29) 44°28.51′ N. lat., 124°12.03′ W. long.;
(30) 44°27.65′ N. lat., 124°12.56′ W. long.;
(31) 44°19.67′ N. lat., 124°12.37′ W. long.;
(32) 44°10.79′ N. lat., 124°12.22′ W. long.;
(33) 44°09.22′ N. lat., 124°12.28′ W. long.;
(34) 44°00.22′ N. lat., 124°12.80′ W. long.;
(35) 43°51.56′ N. lat., 124°13.17′ W. long.;
(36) 43°44.26′ N. lat., 124°14.50′ W. long.;
(37) 43°33.82′ N. lat., 124°16.28′ W. long.;
(38) 43°28.66′ N. lat., 124°18.72′ W. long.;
(39) 43°23.12′ N. lat., 124°24.04′ W. long.;
(40) 43°20.49′ N. lat., 124°25.90′ W. long.;
(41) 43°16.41′ N. lat., 124°27.52′ W. long.;
(42) 43°14.23′ N. lat., 124°29.28′ W. long.;
(43) 43°14.03′ N. lat., 124°28.31′ W. long.;
(44) 43°11.92′ N. lat., 124°28.26′ W. long.;
(45) 43°11.02′ N. lat., 124°29.11′ W. long.;
(46) 43°10.13′ N. lat., 124°29.15′ W. long.;
(47) 43°09.27′ N. lat., 124°31.03′ W. long.;
(48) 43°07.73′ N. lat., 124°30.92′ W. long.;
(49) 43°05.93′ N. lat., 124°29.64′ W. long.;
(50) 43°01.59′ N. lat., 124°30.64′ W. long.;
(51) 42°59.73′ N. lat., 124°31.16′ W. long.;
(52) 42°53.75′ N. lat., 124°36.09′ W. long.;
(53) 42°49.37′ N. lat., 124°38.81′ W. long.;
(54) 42°46.42′ N. lat., 124°37.69′ W. long.;
(55) 42°46.07′ N. lat., 124°38.56′ W. long.;
(56) 42°45.29′ N. lat., 124°37.95′ W. long.;
(57) 42°45.61′ N. lat., 124°36.87′ W. long.;
(58) 42°44.28′ N. lat., 124°33.64′ W. long.;
(59) 42°42.75′ N. lat., 124°31.84′ W. long.;
(60) 42°40.04′ N. lat., 124°29.19′ W. long.;
(61) 42°38.09′ N. lat., 124°28.39′ W. long.;
(62) 42°36.72′ N. lat., 124°27.54′ W. long.;
(63) 42°36.56′ N. lat., 124°28.40′ W. long.;
(64) 42°35.76′ N. lat., 124°28.79′ W. long.;
(65) 42°34.03′ N. lat., 124°29.98′ W. long.;
(66) 42°34.19′ N. lat., 124°30.58′ W. long.;
(67) 42°31.27′ N. lat., 124°32.24′ W. long.;
(68) 42°27.07′ N. lat., 124°32.53′ W. long.;
(69) 42°24.21′ N. lat., 124°31.23′ W. long.;
(70) 42°20.47′ N. lat., 124°28.87′ W. long.;
(71) 42°14.60′ N. lat., 124°26.80′ W. long.;
(72) 42°10.90′ N. lat., 124°24.57′ W. long.;
(73) 42°07.04′ N. lat., 124°23.35′ W. long.;
(74) 42°02.16′ N. lat., 124°22.59′ W. long.;
(75) 42°00.00′ N. lat., 124°21.81′ W. long.;
(76) 41°59.95′ N. lat., 124°21.56′ W. long.;
(77) 41°55.75′ N. lat., 124°20.72′ W. long.;
(78) 41°50.93′ N. lat., 124°23.76′ W. long.;
(79) 41°42.53′ N. lat., 124°16.47′ W. long.;
(80) 41°37.02′ N. lat., 124°17.05′ W. long.;
(81) 41°24.58′ N. lat., 124°10.51′ W. long.;
(82) 41°20.73′ N. lat., 124°11.73′ W. long.;
(83) 41°17.59′ N. lat., 124°10.66′ W. long.;
(84) 41°04.54′ N. lat., 124°14.47′ W. long.;
(85) 40°54.26′ N. lat., 124°13.09′ W. long.;
(86) 40°40.31′ N. lat., 124°26.24′ W. long.;
(87) 40°34.00′ N. lat., 124°27.39′ W. long.;
(88) 40°28.89′ N. lat., 124°32.43′ W. long.;
(89) 40°24.77′ N. lat., 124°29.51′ W. long.;
(90) 40°22.47′ N. lat., 124°24.12′ W. long.;
(91) 40°19.73′ N. lat., 124°23.59′ W. long.;
(92) 40°18.64′ N. lat., 124°21.89′ W. long.;
(93) 40°17.67′ N. lat., 124°23.07′ W. long.;
(94) 40°15.58′ N. lat., 124°23.61′ W. long.;
(95) 40°13.42′ N. lat., 124°22.94′ W. long.; and
(96) 40°10.00′ N. lat., 124°16.65′ W. long.;
(3) Between the U.S./Canada border and 40°10′ N. lat., the western, offshore boundary of the RCA approximates the 100-fm (183-m) depth contour. The boundary is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated:
(1) 48°15.00′ N. lat., 125°41.00′ W. long.;
(2) 48°14.00′ N. lat., 125°36.00′ W. long.;
(3) 48°09.50′ N. lat., 125°40.50′ W. long.;
(4) 48°08.00′ N. lat., 125°38.00′ W. long.;
(5) 48°05.00′ N. lat., 125°37.25′ W. long.;
(6) 48°02.60′ N. lat., 125°34.70′ W. long.;
(7) 47°59.00′ N. lat., 125°34.00′ W. long.;
(8) 47°57.26′ N. lat., 125°29.82′ W. long.;
(9) 47°59.87′ N. lat., 125°25.81′ W. long.;
(10) 48°01.80′ N. lat., 125°24.53′ W. long.;
(11) 48°02.08′ N. lat., 125°22.98′ W. long.;
(12) 48°02.97′ N. lat., 125°22.89′ W. long.;
(13) 48°04.47′ N. lat., 125°21.75′ W. long.;
(14) 48°06.11′ N. lat., 125°19.33′ W. long.;
(15) 48°07.95′ N. lat., 125°18.55′ W. long.;
(16) 48°09.00′ N. lat., 125°18.00′ W. long.;
(17) 48°11.31′ N. lat., 125°17.55′ W. long.;
(18) 48°14.60′ N. lat., 125°13.46′ W. long.;
(19) 48°16.67′ N. lat., 125°14.34′ W. long.;
(20) 48°18.73′ N. lat., 125°14.41′ W. long.;
(21) 48°19.67′ N. lat., 125°13.70′ W. long.;
(22) 48°19.70′ N. lat., 125°11.13′ W. long.;
(23) 48°22.95′ N. lat., 125°10.79′ W. long.;
(24) 48°21.61′ N. lat., 125°02.54′ W. long.;
(25) 48°23.00′ N. lat., 124°49.34′ W. long.;
(26) 48°17.00′ N. lat., 124°56.50′ W. long.;
(27) 48°06.00′ N. lat., 125°00.00′ W. long.;
(28) 48°04.62′ N. lat., 125°01.73′ W. long.;
(29) 48°04.84′ N. lat., 125°04.03′ W. long.;
(30) 48°06.41′ N. lat., 125°06.51′ W. long.;
(31) 48°06.00′ N. lat., 125°08.00′ W. long.;
(32) 48°07.08′ N. lat., 125°09.34′ W. long.;
(33) 48°07.28′ N. lat., 125°11.14′ W. long.;
(34) 48°03.45′ N. lat., 125°16.66′ W. long.;
(35) 47°59.50′ N. lat., 125°18.88′ W. long.;
(36) 47°58.68′ N. lat., 125°16.19′ W. long.;
(37) 47°56.62′ N. lat., 125°13.50′ W. long.;
(38) 47°53.71′ N. lat., 125°11.96′ W. long.;
(39) 47°51.70′ N. lat., 125°09.38′ W. long.;
(40) 47°49.95′ N. lat., 125°06.07′ W. long.;
(41) 47°49.00′ N. lat., 125°03.00′ W. long.;
(42) 47°46.95′ N. lat., 125°04.00′ W. long.;
(43) 47°46.58′ N. lat., 125°03.15′ W. long.;
(44) 47°44.07′ N. lat., 125°04.28′ W. long.;
(45) 47°43.32′ N. lat., 125°04.41′ W. long.;
(46) 47°40.95′ N. lat., 125°04.14′ W. long.;
(47) 47°39.58′ N. lat., 125°04.97′ W. long.;
(48) 47°36.23′ N. lat., 125°02.77′ W. long.;
(49) 47°34.28′ N. lat., 124°58.66′ W. long.;
(50) 47°32.17′ N. lat., 124°57.77′ W. long.;
(51) 47°30.27′ N. lat., 124°56.16′ W. long.;
(52) 47°30.60′ N. lat., 124°54.80′ W. long.;
(53) 47°29.26′ N. lat., 124°52.21′ W. long.;
(54) 47°28.21′ N. lat., 124°50.65′ W. long.;
(55) 47°27.38′ N. lat., 124°49.34′ W. long.;
(56) 47°25.61′ N. lat., 124°48.26′ W. long.;
(57) 47°23.54′ N. lat., 124°46.42′ W. long.;
(58) 47°20.64′ N. lat., 124°45.91′ W. long.;
(59) 47°17.99′ N. lat., 124°45.59′ W. long.;
(60) 47°18.20′ N. lat., 124°49.12′ W. long.;
(61) 47°15.01′ N. lat., 124°51.09′ W. long.;
(62) 47°12.61′ N. lat., 124°54.89′ W. long.;
(63) 47°08.22′ N. lat., 124°56.53′ W. long.;
(64) 47°08.50′ N. lat., 124°57.74′ W. long.;
(65) 47°01.92′ N. lat., 124°54.95′ W. long.;
(66) 47°01.14′ N. lat., 124°59.35′ W. long.;
(67) 46°58.48′ N. lat., 124°57.81′ W. long.;
(68) 46°56.79′ N. lat., 124°56.03′ W. long.;
(69) 46°58.01′ N. lat., 124°55.09′ W. long.;
(70) 46°55.07′ N. lat., 124°54.14′ W. long.;
(71) 46°59.60′ N. lat., 124°49.79′ W. long.;
(72) 46°58.72′ N. lat., 124°48.78′ W. long.;
(73) 46°54.45′ N. lat., 124°48.36′ W. long.;
(74) 46°53.99′ N. lat., 124°49.95′ W. long.;
(75) 46°54.38′ N. lat., 124°52.73′ W. long.;
(76) 46°52.38′ N. lat., 124°52.02′ W. long.;
(77) 46°48.93′ N. lat., 124°49.17′ W. long.;
(78) 46°41.50′ N. lat., 124°43.00′ W. long.;
(79) 46°34.50′ N. lat., 124°28.50′ W. long.;
(80) 46°29.00′ N. lat., 124°30.00′ W. long.;
(81) 46°20.00′ N. lat., 124°36.50′ W. long.;
(82) 46°18.00′ N. lat., 124°38.00′ W. long.;
(83) 46°17.52′ N. lat., 124°35.35′ W. long.;
(84) 46°17.00′ N. lat., 124°22.50′ W. long.;
(85) 46°16.00′ N. lat., 124°20.62′ W. long.;
(86) 46°13.52′ N. lat., 124°25.49′ W. long.;
(87) 46°12.17′ N. lat., 124°30.75′ W. long.;
(88) 46°10.63′ N. lat., 124°37.95′ W. long.;
(89) 46°09.29′ N. lat., 124°39.01′ W. long.;
(90) 46°02.40′ N. lat., 124°40.37′ W. long.;
(91) 45°56.45′ N. lat., 124°38.00′ W. long.;
(92) 45°51.92′ N. lat., 124°38.49′ W. long.;
(93) 45°47.19′ N. lat., 124°35.58′ W. long.;
(94) 45°46.41′ N. lat., 124°32.36′ W. long.;
(95) 45°41.75′ N. lat., 124°28.12′ W. long.;
(96) 45°36.96′ N. lat., 124°24.48′ W. long.;
(97) 45°31.84′ N. lat., 124°22.04′ W. long.;
(98) 45°27.10′ N. lat., 124°21.74′ W. long.;
(99) 45°18.14′ N. lat., 124°17.59′ W. long.;
(100) 45°11.08′ N. lat., 124°16.97′ W. long.;
(101) 45°04.38′ N. lat., 124°18.36′ W. long.;
(102) 44°58.05′ N. lat., 124°21.58′ W. long.;
(103) 44°47.67′ N. lat., 124°31.41′ W. long.;
(104) 44°44.55′ N. lat., 124°33.58′ W. long.;
(105) 44°39.88′ N. lat., 124°35.01′ W. long.;
(106) 44°32.90′ N. lat., 124°36.81′ W. long.;
(107) 44°30.33′ N. lat., 124°38.56′ W. long.;
(108) 44°30.04′ N. lat., 124°42.31′ W. long.;
(109) 44°26.84′ N. lat., 124°44.91′ W. long.;
(110) 44°17.99′ N. lat., 124°51.03′ W. long.;
(111) 44°13.68′ N. lat., 124°56.38′ W. long.;
(112) 43°56.67′ N. lat., 124°55.45′ W. long.;
(113) 43°56.47′ N. lat., 124°34.61′ W. long.;
(114) 43°42.73′ N. lat., 124°32.41′ W. long.;
(115) 43°30.93′ N. lat., 124°34.43′ W. long.;
(116) 43°17.45′ N. lat., 124°41.16′ W. long.;
(117) 43°07.04′ N. lat., 124°41.25′ W. long.;
(118) 43°03.45′ N. lat., 124°44.36′ W. long.;
(119) 43°03.90′ N. lat., 124°50.81′ W. long.;
(120) 42°55.70′ N. lat., 124°52.79′ W. long.;
(121) 42°54.12′ N. lat., 124°47.36′ W. long.;
(122) 42°44.00′ N. lat., 124°42.38′ W. long.;
(123) 42°38.23′ N. lat., 124°41.25′ W. long.;
(124) 42°33.03′ N. lat., 124°42.38′ W. long.;
(125) 42°31.89′ N. lat., 124°42.04′ W. long.;
(126) 42°30.09′ N. lat., 124°42.67′ W. long.;
(127) 42°28.28′ N. lat., 124°47.08′ W. long.;
(128) 42°25.22′ N. lat., 124°43.51′ W. long.;
(129) 42°19.23′ N. lat., 124°37.92′ W. long.;
(130) 42°16.29′ N. lat., 124°36.11′ W. long.;
(131) 42°05.66′ N. lat., 124°34.92′ W. long.;
(132) 42°00.00′ N. lat., 124°35.27′ W. long.;
(133) 42°00.00′ N. lat., 124°35.26′ W. long.;
(134) 41°47.04′ N. lat., 124°27.64′ W. long.;
(135) 41°32.92′ N. lat., 124°28.79′ W. long.;
(136) 41°24.17′ N. lat., 124°28.46′ W. long.;
(137) 41°10.12′ N. lat., 124°20.50′ W. long.;
(138) 40°51.41′ N. lat., 124°24.38′ W. long.;
(139) 40°43.71′ N. lat., 124°29.89′ W. long.;
(140) 40°40.14′ N. lat., 124°30.90′ W. long.;
(141) 40°37.35′ N. lat., 124°29.05′ W. long.;
(142) 40°34.76′ N. lat., 124°29.82′ W. long.;
(143) 40°36.78′ N. lat., 124°37.06′ W. long.;
(144) 40°32.44′ N. lat., 124°39.58′ W. long.;
(145) 40°24.82′ N. lat., 124°35.12′ W. long.;
(146) 40°23.30′ N. lat., 124°31.60′ W. long.;
(147) 40°23.52′ N. lat., 124°28.78′ W. long.;
(148) 40°22.43′ N. lat., 124°25.00′ W. long.;
(149) 40°21.72′ N. lat., 124°24.94′ W. long.;
(150) 40°21.87′ N. lat., 124°27.96′ W. long.;
(151) 40°21.40′ N. lat., 124°28.74′ W. long.;
(152) 40°19.68′ N. lat., 124°28.49′ W. long.;
(153) 40°17.73′ N. lat., 124°25.43′ W. long.;
(154) 40°18.37′ N. lat., 124°23.35′ W. long.;
(155) 40°15.75′ N. lat., 124°26.05′ W. long.;
(156) 40°16.75′ N. lat., 124°33.71′ W. long.;
(157) 40°16.29′ N. lat., 124°34.36′ W. long.;
(158) 40°10.00′ N. lat., 124°21.12′ W. long.; and
(159) 40°10.00′ N. lat., 124°21.50′ W. long.
This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Under the CSP, recreational fisheries for Pacific halibut off the U.S. West Coast begin in early May. The Federal regulations implemented for 2003 remain in place until they are replaced by these regulations. Therefore, if there is a 30-day delay in effectiveness for these regulations, the fishery would operate under last year's regulations for the first month. The start dates for most of the recreational fisheries off Washington and Oregon are slightly different in 2004 than they were in 2003. For example, in Puget Sound, the fishery started on May 8 in 2003, but is scheduled to start on May 6 in 2004. A delay in effectiveness of this rule would delay the season by two days, effectively missing the first weekend for which the fishery is scheduled. In the North Coast of Washington, the fishery is scheduled to start May 11, 2004, which is 10 days later than in 2003, so a delay in effectiveness would allow the fishery to start 10 days earlier than planned. In the area between the Queets River and Leadbetter Point, the fishery is scheduled for Sunday through Thursday. However, if last year's regulations are left in place, the dates in place will not cover Sunday through Thursday, rather they will cover Saturday through Wednesday. In areas off Oregon the May 1 season is scheduled to open inside of a line approximating 40 fms (73 m), whereas last year's season was within the 30 fm (55 m) curve. Finally the all-depth season in this area, which was carefully crafted to avoid adverse tidal conditions in 2004 would fall a week earlier than planned, possibly in challenging circumstances, and on Saturday, Sunday and Monday, rather than on Thursday, Friday and Saturday.
Recreational fisheries start dates primarily differ from year to year because the CSP has a long history of managing the different subareas so that fisheries occur on particular days of the week. Thus, a Sunday through Thursday fishery will always occur Sundays through Thursdays, but will have different calendar dates from year to year. The IPHC crafted its annual regulations and adopted TACs for all of its management areas, including Area 2A in late January 2004. Following the January IPHC meeting, NMFS worked with IPHC and state management staff to craft a proposed rule for this action, published on February 23, 2004 (69 FR 8162). Both Oregon and Washington states adopted state regulations for their halibut fisheries after the IPHC's TACs and 2004 regulations became effective on February 29, 2004. Although NMFS was able to provide a public comment period following the proposed rule, the agency did not have time to publish a final rule and allow a 30-day delay in effectiveness period prior to May 1. A delay in effectiveness of 30 days would cause the state and Federal regulations to be in conflict, would cause great confusion in the recreational fishing industry, and would result in fishing seasons that differ from the seasons carefully crafted by the states, the industry, and the Pacific Council. In addition, anglers visiting coastal areas
NMFS prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) that describes the economic impact this final rule will have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble. The FRFA is available from NMFS (see
During the comment period for the proposed rule, NMFS received 2 letters and one e-mail letter of comment. None of these comments addressed the initial regulatory flexibility analysis or economic impacts of the rule on small businesses. There are no recordkeeping, reporting, or other compliance issues forthcoming from this final rule. This rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal laws.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603
Approximately 700 vessels were issued IPHC licenses to retain halibut in 2003. IPHC issues licenses for: the directed commercial fishery in Area 2A, including licenses issued to retain halibut caught incidentally in the primary sablefish fishery (260 licenses in 2003); incidental halibut caught in the salmon troll fishery (323 licenses in 2003); and the charterboat fleet (127 licenses in 2003). No vessel may participate in more than one of these three fisheries per year. Individual recreational anglers and private boats are the only sectors that are not required to have an IPHC license to retain halibut.
Specific data on the economics of halibut charter operations are unavailable. However, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) is completing a report on the overall West Coast charterboat fleet. In surveying charterboat vessels concerning their operations in 2000, the Commission estimated that there were about 315 charterboat vessels in operation off Washington and Oregon. Compared with the 127 IPHC licenses in 2003, this estimate suggests that approximately 40 percent of the charterboat fleet participates in the halibut fishery. The Commission has developed preliminary estimates of the annual revenues earned by this fleet and they vary by size class of the vessels and home state. Small charterboat vessels range from 15 to 30 ft (4.572 to 9.144 m) and typically carry 5 to 6 passengers. Medium charterboat vessels range from 31 to 49 ft (9.4488 to 14.9352 m) in length and typically carry 19 to 20 passengers. (Neither state has large vessels of greater than 49 ft (14.9352 m) in their fleet.) Average annual revenues from all types of recreational fishing, whalewatching and other activities ranged from $7,000 for small Oregon vessels to $131,000 for medium Washington vessels. These data confirm that charterboat vessels qualify as small entities under the RFA.
The changes to the Area 2A Plan, which allocates the catch of Pacific halibut among users in Washington, Oregon and California, will: (1) provide more flexibility for Washington inseason sport fishery management; (2) revise the public announcement process for the Puget Sound sport fishery (Washington's inside waters subarea); (3) revise season dates for the Washington North Coast and South Coast sport fisheries; (4) combine the Oregon North Central and South Central subareas; (5) revise the “additional fishing days' season structure for Oregon's spring and summer sport fisheries; (6) extend the season closing date for Oregon/California sport fisheries south of Humbug Mountain subarea; and (7) change the depth restriction for Oregon's nearshore sport fishery. The 2004 Area 2A halibut management measures revise the eastern, inshore boundary of an area closed to non-treaty commercial halibut fishing. One minor change in the flexible inseason management provisions for Area 2A is that the NMFS telephone hotline will be maintained from May through October rather than May through September to cover the duration of the commercial and sport halibut seasons in Area 2A.
The changes to the Plan and annual domestic Area 2A halibut management measures will affect charter fishing operations, anglers and commercial halibut fishermen who operate off Washington and Oregon. In 2003, IPHC issued 127 licenses to the charterboat fleet, 260 licenses to the commercial directed fishery which includes licenses for vessels retaining halibut caught incidentally to the primary sablefish fishery, and 323 licenses to salmon troll vessels to retain incidentally caught halibut. For 2004, the changes to the Plan and annual domestic Area 2A halibut management measures are non-substantive. These changes are within the Plan′s management objective of allocating the TAC in Area 2A, while also allowing commercial, sport, and tribal fisheries to target halibut in the manner most appropriate for the user's needs within that fishery. These changes to the Plan and annual domestic Area 2A halibut management measures are authorized under the Halibut Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 300.60-65.
The changes to the Plan and annual domestic Area 2A halibut management measures are expected to result in either no impact at all, or a modest increase in fishing opportunity for commercial and sport halibut fishermen and operators. The sport management measures for 2004 implement the Plan by managing the sport fishery to meet the differing fishery needs of the various areas along the coast according to the Plan′s objectives. The non-treaty commercial management measures for 2004 will allow the fishery access to the commercial portion of the Area 2A TAC while protecting overfished rockfish species that co-occur with halibut. The measures for 2004 will be very similar to last year′s management measures.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, the Secretary of Commerce recognizes the sovereign status and co-manager role of Indian tribes over shared Federal and tribal fishery resources. At section 302(b)(5), the Magnuson-Stevens Act reserves a seat on the Pacific Council for a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized fishing rights from California, Oregon, Washington, or Idaho.
The U.S. Government formally recognizes that the 12 Washington Tribes have treaty rights to fish for Pacific halibut. In general terms, the quantification of those rights is 50 percent of the harvestable surplus of Pacific halibut available in the tribes'
16 U.S.C. 773-773k.
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) It is unlawful for any person to possess, land or purchase halibut south of 46°53′18′′ N. lat. that were taken and retained as incidental catch authorized by this section in the directed longline sablefish fishery.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues final regulations to implement Amendment 21 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (Amendment 21) prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). These final regulations modify the fishing restrictions that apply within the Madison and Swanson sites and Steamboat Lumps marine reserves in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and extend the period of effectiveness of those restrictions through June 16, 2010. The intended effect of these final regulations is to protect the spawning aggregations of species within these areas, prevent overfishing, and aid in the evaluation of the effectiveness of marine reserves as a management tool.
This final rule is effective June 3, 2004.
Copies of the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) may be obtained from Phil Steele, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702; telephone: 727-570-5305, fax: 727-570-5583, e-mail:
Phil Steele, telephone: 727-570-5305, fax: 727-570-5583, e-mail:
The reef fish fishery in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The Madison and Swanson sites and Steamboat Lumps are located in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and encompass a total area of approximately 219 square nautical miles (751 km
This final rule modifies the fishing restrictions that apply within the Madison and Swanson sites and Steamboat Lumps marine reserves and extends the period of effectiveness of those restrictions through June 16, 2010. Specifically, within these marine reserves, this final rule: (1) prohibits the possession of Gulf reef fish year-round, except for possession aboard a vessel in transit with fishing gear appropriately stowed; (2) during November through April, prohibits all fishing and possession of any fish species, with exceptions for highly migratory pelagic species (billfish, sharks, swordfish and tunas other than blackfin tuna) and for fish possessed aboard a vessel in transit with fishing gear appropriately stowed; and (3) during May through October, restricts fishing activity to surface trolling only. Additional discussion of these measures and the rationale for them is provided in Amendment 21 and in the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here.
On December 10, 2003, NMFS announced the availability of Amendment 21 and requested comments on it (68 FR 68854). NMFS published the proposed rule to implement Amendment 21 and requested comments on the proposed rule through February 19, 2004 (69 FR 310, January 5, 2004). NMFS approved Amendment 21 on March 3, 2004.
NMFS received 14 comments on Amendment 21 supporting the continuation of the Madison-Swanson sites and Steamboat Lumps marine reserves. Additionally, three Council members jointly submitted a minority report objecting to various aspects of Amendment 21. Six comments were received on the proposed rule, including a minority report submitted by one Council member.
The primary protective measures, i.e., restrictions on fishing for and possessing reef fish, can be enforced adequately. Specifically, the year-round prohibition on possession of reef fish can be enforced by a presence or absence determination. The only exception to the year-round prohibition (i.e., for a transiting vessel) is conditioned on specific requirements for non-stop progression through the area and gear-specific requirements for stowing any fishing gear. The year-round prohibition on possession of all reef fish in the marine reserves, except aboard a vessel that is strictly transiting, is a key measure for protection of reef fish species and is a measure that is enforceable by U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) surface assets at sea. Similarly, during the November through April peak spawning periods, except for HMS species, the reserves are closed to all fishing and the possession of any fish species is prohibited, except for vessels that are only transiting the reserves. NMFS believes these measures can be adequately enforced by USCG surface assets at sea and will protect reef fish and the spawning aggregations during the period of greatest vulnerability. As to the claim that allowing HMS fishing activity would render the provisions unenforceable, the Council has requested, and NMFS's HMS Division is in the process of considering, options for the development of fishing restrictions consistent with those implemented by the Council. When adopted, such measures would further enhance enforceability by eliminating some of the exceptions to the Council's fishing restrictions and would provide protections that do not currently exist in the reserves.
NMFS disagrees with the comments that allowance of limited surface trolling would render other restrictions unenforceable. Allowing seasonal surface trolling will have virtually no effect on the enforcement of some of the key protective measures, e.g., closure of the reserves to all fishing during the 6-month peak spawning period and year-round prohibitions on fishing for or possessing reef fish. The decision to allow limited surface trolling for 6 months of the year was supported by a majority of the Council members, who opposed a complete closure of the marine reserves to all fishing. Although allowing seasonal surface trolling will complicate enforcement somewhat during that 6-month period, NMFS believes that provision represents a reasonable balance of ensuring adequate conservation benefits while minimizing regulatory effects on an activity that is not expected to adversely affect reef fish species.
NMFS believes that the definition of surface trolling is functional despite the fact that not all aspects of the definition may be easily observed by enforcement officers in all situations. Although the boat speed and visible wake are admittedly difficult to gauge from a distance, the definition also describes prohibited trolling gear that potentially would be readily observable by enforcement officers inspecting fishing vessels.
NMFS does not believe that allowing reef fish aboard a vessel transiting the reserves will unduly compromise the general prohibition on fishing for or possessing reef fish. The stipulations requiring non-stop progression through the area and detailed requirements for stowage of fishable gear are sufficiently stringent to prevent the fishing restrictions from being easily circumvented. Allowing vessels with reef fish and other fish species aboard to transit the reserves minimizes disruptions to the activities of vessels that do not fish in the reserves and alleviates potential safety-at-sea issues that could arise from requiring such vessels to spend extra time circumnavigating the reserves.
NMFS disagrees with the comment that allowing any fishing activity in the reserves would result in a failure to prevent overfishing or to achieve optimum yield. Given the small size of the reserves and the minimal proportion of the overall fishing mortality that would be expected to occur there, it is very unlikely, even under a worst-case scenario, that fishing under the proposed restrictions would jeopardize the prevention of overfishing or achievement of optimum yield. The Madison and Swanson sites and Steamboat Lumps marine reserves were established to provide extended protection of spawning aggregations of gag in order to prevent overfishing and improve spawning success; provide protection for a portion of the offshore population of male gag, which has been substantially reduced in proportion to female gag since the 1970s; and allow for the continued evaluation of the effect and usefulness of marine reserves as a fishery management tool. Testimony from NMFS's scientists and other members of the scientific community indicates that fish populations have increased in the closed areas even though trolling for HMS has been allowed. After evaluating all available information, the Council determined that the effects of surface trolling on deep-reef fish species within the marine reserves would be minimal, as the surface trolling activities allowed in the proposed rule have been demonstrated generally to not interact with such species. NMFS believes that the combination of restrictive measures applied in the marine reserves can be enforced adequately and that such measures will contribute to the prevention of overfishing and to the achievement of optimum yield from the fishery.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, determined that Amendment 21, which this final rule implements, is necessary for the conservation and management of the Gulf reef fish fishery and is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared a FRFA for this final rule. A summary of the FRFA follows.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for the final rule. The rule will extend the designation of the Madison and Swanson sites and Steamboat Lumps as marine reserves for another 6 years from the current sunset date of June 16, 2004. Within the designated areas the rule will: prohibit possession of Gulf reef fish, except for possession aboard a vessel in transit with fishing gear appropriately stowed; prohibit fishing for and possession of any fish species during November through April, with exceptions for highly migratory species and for possession of fish aboard a vessel in transit with gear appropriately stowed; allow only surface trolling during May through October; and require vessels transiting the marine reserves in possession of fish, subject to an exemption, to comply with gear stowage requirements.
The objectives of the final rule are to provide continued protection to spawning aggregations for gag, male gag, and other species within the reserves. A subsidiary objective of the final rule is to allow additional time for research to be conducted on the effectiveness of the two marine reserves as a fishery management tool. The Council believes that the achievement of these objectives can be best accomplished through an extension of the marine reserve designation for another 6 years.
No significant issues were raised by public comments in response to the IRFA or related to the economic impacts of the proposed rule. Therefore, no changes were made in the final rule as a result of such comments.
The final rule will not impose any changes in record-keeping for affected entities. Compliance requirements will change slightly by allowing the use of troll gear within the reserves and allowing vessels to transit the reserves. These changes will mitigate revenue losses from fishing restrictions within the reserves and reduce travel costs for vessels passing through the reserves.
No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. However, fishing restrictions within the reserves may pose coordination problems with respect to fishing provisions affecting highly migratory species.
This final rule will impact both the commercial and recreational participants that traditionally harvested fish, provided recreational trips, or received harvested fish from these areas, or would be expected to do so upon sunset of the current designation. The specific fishing activities that historically occurred within the two marine reserves are unknown because no data have been collected at such a fine level of a geographic specificity. However, some characteristics of fishing activities can be inferred from fishing activities historically conducted in Statistical Areas 6 and 8, where the marine reserves are located. This approach likely overestimates the impacts of the final rule because participants likely have adjusted their fishing patterns. Adjustments in the estimation procedures incorporating consideration of water depth have been introduced to partially address this problem.
Of the 1,338 boats that reported in their logbooks to have historically landed fish in the Gulf of Mexico, 356 boats harvested fish in Statistical Areas 6 or 8. These 356 boats include 59 vessels that harvest reef fish using fish traps. These trap vessels are not believed to have historically operated in the marine reserve areas since trap vessels generally operate in shallower waters. Eighty-seven dealers received fish that were harvested in Statistical Areas 6 or 8. There are 1,515 for-hire vessels with Gulf reef fish or coastal migratory pelagics permits. It cannot be determined, however, how many of these vessels actually fished in Statistical Areas 6 or 8. The rule is, thus, expected to directly affect 297 commercial fishing vessels, 87 fish dealers/processors, and an unknown number of for-hire vessels.
Average gross receipts of vessels in the eastern Gulf (those that likely fished in Statistical Areas 6 or 8) are estimated to range from $24,588 for low-volume vessels that fish with vertical line gear to $116,989 for high-volume vessels that fish with longline gear. Total employment by reef fish processors in the Southeast is estimated at 700 individuals, both part and full time. Given that fish dealers are smaller business operations than processors, employment by any of the affected dealers is assumed less than 500 individuals. Average gross receipts for charterboats is estimated at $68,000 and $324,000 for headboats. A fishing business is considered a small entity by the Small Business Administration if it is independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field of operation, and has annual receipts not in excess of $3.5 million in the case of commercial harvesting entities or $6 million in the case of for-hire entities, or if it has fewer than 500 employees in the case of fish processors, or fewer than 100 employees in the case of fish dealers. All business entities directly affected by the rule are, therefore, considered to be small business entities.
Assuming alternative sources of revenue have not been located during the current closure, the final rule is expected to continue to reduce total gross revenues of commercial fishing vessels by $352,000 annually, based on pre-closure fishing information. This represents approximately 2 percent to 5 percent of gross revenues if equally divided among the 297 affected vessels. The revenue and profit profile for dealers is unknown. The projected reduction in ex-vessel sales ($352,000) as a result of the final rule equals approximately 11 percent of total shallow-water grouper revenues generated from harvests in Statistical Areas 6 and 8. It is unlikely, however, that any dealer with substantial business operations would be wholly dependent upon harvests from just these areas. Although there is some information on the revenues of for-hire vessels, information on for-hire vessel profits is unavailable, and the extent of for-hire vessel participation within the marine reserves is unknown. It is, therefore, not possible to provide an estimate of the impacts of the two marine reserves on the revenues and profits of for-hire vessels.
The final rule is expected to produce unquantifiable lower impacts than current fishing restrictions because the rule will allow surface trolling within the two reserves for the months of May through October and will allow commercial and recreational vessels to transit the reserves, two activities that are not allowed under current regulations. This will allow both increased fishing activity for vessels that wish to fish the area and lower costs for vessels for vessels that wish to transit the restricted areas.
Seven alternatives were considered for the continuation of the two marine reserves. The alternatives differ mainly on the sunset date of the marine reserve designation, with four alternatives identifying a specific sunset date and three alternatives establishing an indefinite sunset date. For any given set of fishing restrictions accompanying the continuation of the marine reserve designation, adverse impacts are greater the longer the restrictions remain in place. It is not possible to determine the relative impacts of the alternatives that specify an indeterminate duration since they lack a terminal point. With respect to those alternatives that have specific time durations, two alternatives provide shorter time horizons, and two provide longer time horizons than the final rule. Costs to small entities would be reduced under the no-extension or 4-year extension alternatives, whereas costs would increase under the longer extensions. The shorter extensions, however, would not provide sufficient time to assess the effects of the two marine reserves as a management tool and would not, therefore, achieve the Council's objectives.
Six alternatives to the harvest restrictions were considered. In terms of impacts on revenues of small entities, these alternatives may be grouped into two groups, with the final alternative intermediate in severity of fishing restriction. The final rule will allow trolling within the reserves for 6 months of the year. Four alternatives were more restrictive than the final rule and would not reduce the adverse impacts. Two alternatives were less restrictive than the final rule and would allow trolling year-round. These alternatives would reduce the negative impacts of the rule but also would reduce the protection of gag spawners during the spawning months. Prohibition of all trolling, however, was determined to be excessive. The final rule is expected to best achieve the Council's objectives at the lowest possible cost.
Two alternatives were considered relative to the seasonal duration of the fishing restrictions. These two alternatives would reduce the seasonal duration of the fishing restrictions and, therefore, reduce the negative effects of the fishing restrictions within the reserves. However, reducing the seasonal duration of the fishing restrictions reduces stock protection and increases the likelihood that the restrictions will not capture the seasonal variability of the spawning months for the target species. Annual application of the fishing restrictions is, therefore, necessary to achieve the objectives of the rule.
Copies of the RIR and FRFA are available from NMFS (see
Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands.
16 U.S.C. 1801
(k)
(ii) Steamboat Lumps is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points:
(iii) The provisions of paragraphs (k)(2) through (6) of this section apply within the Madison and Swanson sites and Steamboat Lumps through June 16, 2010.
(2) Possession of Gulf reef fish is prohibited, except for such possession aboard a vessel in transit with fishing gear stowed as specified in paragraph (k)(4) of this section.
(3) During November through April, all fishing is prohibited, and possession of any fish species is prohibited, except for such possession aboard a vessel in transit with fishing gear stowed as specified in paragraph (k)(4) of this section. The provisions of this paragraph, (k)(3), do not apply to highly migratory species.
(4) For the purpose of paragraph (k) of this section, transit means non-stop progression through the area; fishing gear appropriately stowed means -
(i) A longline may be left on the drum if all gangions and hooks are disconnected and stowed below deck. Hooks cannot be baited. All buoys must be disconnected from the gear; however, buoys may remain on deck.
(ii) A trawl net may remain on deck, but trawl doors must be disconnected from the trawl gear and must be secured.
(iii) A gillnet must be left on the drum. Any additional gillnets not attached to the drum must be stowed below deck.
(iv) A rod and reel must be removed from the rod holder and stowed securely on or below deck. Terminal gear (i.e., hook, leader, sinker, flasher, or bait) must be disconnected and stowed separately from the rod and reel. Sinkers must be disconnected from the down rigger and stowed separately.
(5) During May through October, surface trolling is the only allowable fishing activity. For the purpose of this paragraph (k)(5), surface trolling is defined as fishing with lines trailing behind a vessel which is in constant motion at speeds in excess of four knots with a visible wake. Such trolling may not involve the use of down riggers, wire lines, planers, or similar devices.
(6) For the purpose of paragraph (k) of this section, fish means finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of marine animal and plant life other than marine mammals and birds. Highly migratory species means tuna species, marlin (
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) proposes to revise its regulations governing guaranteed loans to allow lenders to use guaranteed loans as security for loans to the lenders. The Agency also proposes to remove certain unnecessary documentation and security requirements, correct errors, and clarify its procedures for applying for, making, and servicing FSA guaranteed loans.
Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before July 6, 2004, to be given full consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent possible.
The Farm Service Agency invites interested persons to submit comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Comments may be inspected in the Office of the Director, Loan Making Division, Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Suite 240, 1280 Maryland Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0522, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays.
Galen VanVleet, Senior Loan Officer, Loan Making Division, Farm Service Agency; telephone: (202) 720-3889; facsimile: (202) 720-6797; e-mail:
Section 762.102(b) defines the term “financially viable operation.” However, the term is not used in the regulation. To avoid confusion, the term and definition are removed.
Section 762.106(b)(8) requires that lenders applying for Certified Lender Program (CLP) status submit copies of forms to be used for farm loan program processing and servicing, such as financial statements, cash flow plans, and budgets. This requirement is unnecessary and will be removed. FSA field offices are already familiar with forms that are used by lenders applying for CLP status. To qualify for CLP, lenders must have first made a certain number of guaranteed loans as Standard Eligible Lenders (SEL's), and the forms relative to those loans are reviewed by FSA.
Section 762.106(c)(8) requires that Preferred Lender Program (PLP) lenders designate a person or persons, approved by FSA, to process and service PLP loans. The existing regulation has been confusing and somewhat contrary to the intent of the PLP program, in that it unnecessarily involves FSA in lender decisions. Therefore, the proposed rule removes the requirement that the Agency approve the designee(s) and modifies the regulation to allow the lender to designate the responsible party by name, title, or position.
Section 762.124(e)(1) provides that lenders may charge fees provided they are no greater than those charged to customers without an FSA guarantee for similar transactions. There has been some confusion as to whether third-party processing fees are included in this restriction. The proposed rule clarifies that lenders may not charge, or cause to be charged, any processing, servicing, or packaging fees that are not charged to non-guaranteed customers for similar transactions.
Section 762.126(e) generally provides that all guaranteed loans be secured by the best lien obtainable. In addition, the regulation establishes restrictions on acceptable lien positions for security on guaranteed loans. One restriction is that when a loan is made for refinancing purposes the guaranteed loan must hold a security position no lower than on the refinanced loan. When lenders refinance chattel secured loans with a loan secured by real estate, this restriction requires them to obtain or maintain a lien on the chattels. This unnecessarily restricts flexibility and may impair the lender's ability to provide the best terms and rates. The proposed rule removes this restriction.
Another restriction, under section 762.126(e) limits junior lien positions to situations where equity position is strong. This restriction has been difficult to implement equitably because of varying interpretations of “strong.” It is proposed that the junior liens instead be limited to situations where the amount of debt, including the proposed junior lien, is less than or equal to 75 percent of the value of the security. This would equate to an equity position of 25 percent and is consistent with the existing requirement in section 762.142(b), which permits partial releases based, in part, on a 75-percent debt to security requirement.
Section 762.145 (b)(6)(i) contains an incorrect citation to the loan limits. The proposed rule corrects that citation.
A new section, 762.159, is proposed to address the use of Agency guaranteed loans as security for lender funding. Many lenders routinely borrow money from a Federal Home Loan Bank or a Federal Reserve Bank to meet funding or liquidity needs. Lenders are usually required to pledge loan assets, which may include Agency guaranteed loans, as security for the loans. The existing regulation's restrictions on assignments has led to confusion as to how or
Section 762.160 deals with the sale, assignment, and participation of guarantees. This rule proposes to revise this section to clarify confusing portions and remove unnecessarily restrictive provisions. As used in the existing section and as defined in section 762.102(2), “sale of guaranteed portion” and “assignment of guaranteed portion” are synonymous. To reduce confusion, references to “sale of guaranteed portion” are removed, including the definition in section 762.102(b). The existing section requires Agency concurrence for participation in a guarantee. A participation is where a person or organization buys an interest in a loan in which the originating lender keeps the note, the collateral securing the note, and all responsibility for loan servicing. The Agency has determined that the use of participation does not affect the risk to the Agency because the originating lender retains the note and all servicing responsibility, and a participant has no claim to the guarantee in case of default. Because the risk to the Agency is not affected, the unnecessary requirement of Agency concurrence for participation is removed in the proposed rule. Because the term “participation” will no longer be used, the proposed rule also will remove the term and definition in section 762.102(b).
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
FSA certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities and, therefore, is not required to perform a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. 96-534, as amended (5 U.S.C. 601). In any case, none of the lenders using the guaranteed loan program are small entities, and this rule does not impact the smaller entities to a greater extent than the larger entities.
The environmental impacts of this proposed rule have been considered in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. All State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule. It will not affect agreements entered into before the effective date of the rule to the extent the rule is inconsistent with those agreements. The administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before bringing any action for judicial review.
For reasons set forth in the notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983) the programs and activities in this rule are excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with state and local officials.
This rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined by Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4), 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.
The amendments to 7 CFR part 762 contained in this proposed rule require no revisions to the information collection requirements that were approved by OMB under control number 0560-0155.
These changes affect the following FSA programs as listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance:
Agriculture, Loan programs—Agriculture.
Accordingly, it is proposed that 7 CFR chapter VII be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 762 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 7 U.S.C. 1989.
2. In § 762.102(b), remove the definitions of “Financially viable operation,” “Participation,” and “Sale of guaranteed portion”.
3. Amend § 762.106 by removing paragraph (b)(8) and revising paragraph (c)(8) to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(8) Designate a person or persons, either by name, title, or position within the organization, to process and service PLP loans for the Agency.
4. Revise § 762.124(e)(1) to read as follows:
(e) * * *
(1) The lender may charge the loan applicant and borrower fees for the loan provided they are no greater than those charged to unguaranteed customers for similar transactions. The lender may not charge, or cause to be charged, any processing, servicing, or packaging fee not charged to unguaranteed customers for similar transactions. Similar transactions are those involving the same type of loan requested (for example, operating loans or farm real estate loans).
5. In § 762.126, remove paragraph (e)(1), redesignate paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(3), and (e)(4) as (e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3), respectively, and revise newly designated paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:
(e) * * *
(2) Junior lien positions are acceptable only if the total amount of debt with liens on the security, including the debt in junior lien position, is less than or equal to 75 percent of the value of the security. Junior liens on crops or livestock products will not be relied upon for security unless the lender is involved in multiple guaranteed loans to the same borrower and also has the first lien on the crops or livestock products.
6. Revise § 762.145(b)(6)(i) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(6) * * *
(i) As a result of the capitalization of interest, a rescheduled promissory note may increase the amount of principal which the borrower is required to pay. However, in no case will such principal amount exceed the statutory loan limits contained in § 761.8 of this chapter.
7. Add § 762.159, to read as follows:
A lender may pledge all or part of the guaranteed portion of the loan as security to a Federal Home Loan Bank or Federal Reserve Bank. In the event that a Federal Home Loan Bank or Federal Reserve Bank acquires a guaranteed loan as a result of enforcing its security interest, the guarantee will be unenforceable until a new eligible lender is substituted in accordance with § 762.105. The guarantee will not cover a loss that results from negligent servicing during any period when the loan is held by an ineligible lender, including the Federal Home Loan Bank or Federal Reserve Bank.
8. Revise § 762.160 to read as follows:
(a) The following general requirements apply to assigning guaranteed loans.
(1) Subject to Agency concurrence, the lender may assign all or part of the guaranteed portion of the loan to one or more holders at or after loan closing, if the loan is not in default. However, a line of credit cannot be assigned.
(2) The Agency may refuse to execute the Assignment of Guarantee in case of the following:
(i) The Agency purchased and is holder of a loan that was assigned by the lender that is requesting the assignment.
(ii) The lender has not complied with the reimbursement requirements of § 762.144(c)(7), except when the 180-day reimbursement or liquidation requirement has been waived by the Agency.
(3) The lender will provide the Agency with copies of all appropriate executed forms used in the assignment.
(4) The guaranteed portion of the loan may not be assigned by the lender until the loan has been fully disbursed to the borrower.
(5) The lender is not permitted to assign any amount of the guaranteed or unguaranteed portion of the loan to the loan applicant or borrower, or members of their immediate families, their officers, directors, stockholders, other owners, or any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate.
(6) Upon the lender's assignment of the guaranteed portion of the loan, the lender will remain bound to all obligations indicated in the Guarantee, the Lender's Agreement, the Agency program regulations, and to future program regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the Lender's Agreement. The lender retains all rights under the security instruments for the protection of the lender and the United States.
(b) The following will occur upon the lender's assignment of the guaranteed portion of the loan:
(1) The holder will succeed to all rights of the Guarantee pertaining to the portion of the loan assigned.
(2) The lender will send the holder the borrower's executed note attached to the Guarantee.
(3) The holder, upon written notice to the lender and the Agency, may assign the unpaid guaranteed portion of the loan. The holder must assign the guaranteed portion back to the original lender if requested by the lender for servicing or liquidation of the account.
(4) The guarantee or assignment of guarantee in the holder's possession does not cover:
(i) Interest accruing 90 days after the holder has demanded repurchase by the lender, except as provided in the assignment of guarantee and § 762.144(c)(3)(iii).
(ii) Interest accruing 90 days after the lender or the Agency has requested the holder to surrender evidence of debt repurchase, if the holder has not previously demanded repurchase.
(c) Negotiations concerning premiums, fees, and additional payments for loans are to take place between the holder and the lender. The Agency will participate in such negotiations only as a provider of information.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to establish January 1, 2008, as the uniform compliance date for new food labeling regulations that are issued between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2006. FSIS is proposing to establish a uniform compliance date to minimize the economic impact of labeling changes by providing for an orderly industry adjustment to new labeling requirements. Furthermore, FSIS is establishing the uniform compliance date to be consistent with the approach that the Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has already established.
Submit comments by July 6, 2004.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Mail, including floppy disks or CD-ROM's, and hand-or courier-delivered items: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 300 12th Street, SW., Room 102 Cotton Annex, Washington, DC 20250.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
All submissions received must include the Agency name and docket number 03-026P or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 0583-AD05.
All comments submitted in response to this proposal, as well as research and background information used by FSIS in developing this document, will be
Robert C. Post, Ph.D., Director, Labeling and Consumer Protection Staff, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250-3700, Telephone (202) 205-0279, Fax (202) 205-3625. Copies of references cited in this document are available in the FSIS Docket Clerk's Office (
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) periodically issues regulations requiring changes in the labeling of meat and poultry food products. Currently, the Agency establishes a compliance date for each new labeling regulation that it publishes. Many meat and poultry establishments also produce non-meat and non-poultry food products subject to the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the FDA also periodically issues regulations requiring changes in the labeling of such food products. In contrast to FSIS, FDA has a standard uniform compliance date for all of its food labeling regulations that are issued during a given two year period. FSIS has determined that coordinating the effective dates of its labeling changes and FDA's labeling changes will minimize the economic impact of those changes on the industry.
Therefore, FSIS believes that there should be a uniform compliance date for all food product labeling regulations affecting meat and poultry establishments that are issued within a two year period. Such a compliance date will ensure that changes will take effect on a timely basis, but that companies will not have to respond separately to each change.
In December 2002, FDA established January 1, 2006, as the uniform compliance date for all Federal food labeling regulations affecting non-meat and non-poultry food products which it issues between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2004. We anticipate that FDA will publish in the
Like FDA, FSIS intends to set uniform compliance dates in two year increments. The Agency believes that two year increments will enhance the industry's ability to make orderly adjustments to new labeling requirements. Industry will be able to plan for the use of label inventories and develop new labeling materials that include new requirements of all the labeling regulations made within the two year period, thereby minimizing the economic impact of labeling changes. By establishing a uniform compliance date that is the same as FDA's, FSIS is providing the meat and poultry industry with a greater ability to adjust its production plans to new labeling requirements across all of its product lines.
Establishing this policy serves consumers' interests because the cost of multiple short-term label revisions that would otherwise occur would likely be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
If adopted, this action will not change existing requirements for compliance dates contained in final rules published before January 1, 2005. Therefore, all final FSIS regulations published in the
Even if this action is adopted, it will remain the agency's policy generally to encourage industry to comply with new labeling regulations as quickly as feasible. Thus, when industry members voluntarily change their labels, they should consider incorporating any new requirements that have been published as final regulations up to that time.
The new uniform compliance date, if adopted, will apply only to final FSIS regulations that require changes in the labeling of meat and poultry products and that are published after January 1, 2005, and before December 31, 2006. In each of these regulations, FSIS will specifically identify January 1, 2008, as the compliance date. All meat and poultry food products that are subject to the labeling regulations promulgated between January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2006, will be required to comply with these regulations when introduced into commerce on or after January 1, 2008. If any food labeling regulation involves special circumstances that justify a compliance date other than January 1, 2008, the agency will determine for that regulation an appropriate compliance date, which will be specified when the final regulation is published.
This action has been determined to be not significant and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Establishing a uniform compliance date for all future Federal food product labeling regulations affecting the meat and poultry industry that are issued by FSIS and FDA over a two year period will eliminate potentially burdensome requirements otherwise faced by the industry. This measure is consistent with regulatory reform of Federal rulemaking in that it eliminates potentially unnecessary and burdensome requirements.
The elimination of potentially conflicting compliance dates provides an orderly industry adjustment to any new labeling requirements. Labeling changes in response to Federal regulations will likely be less frequent, and establishments will be able to plan for full utilization of their labeling stocks.
This rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; consequently, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The uniform compliance date does not impose any burden on small entities. The agency will conduct regulatory flexibility analyses of future labeling regulations if such analyses are required.
There are no paperwork or recordkeeping requirements associated with this rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to better ensure that the public and in particular that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this proposed rule, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at
The Regulations.gov Web site is the central online rulemaking portal of the United States government. It is being offered as a public service to increase participation in the Federal government's regulatory activities. FSIS
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the agency) is reopening for 60 days the comment period for the proposed rule entitled “Food Labeling: Nutrient Content Claims, General Principles; Health Claims, General Requirements and Other Specific Requirements for Individual Health Claims” (the 1995 proposal). In that document, FDA proposed to amend its existing nutrient content claims and health claims regulations to provide additional flexibility in the use of these claims on food products. Since the publication of the 1995 proposal, FDA established a task force for the Consumer Health Information for Better Nutrition Initiative, which recommended that FDA seek public comment on several topics related to qualified health claims and unqualified health claims (i.e., health claims that are supported by significant scientific agreement (SSA) and authorized by FDA by regulation). Some of these topics on unqualified health claims were specifically addressed in the 1995 proposal and, therefore, FDA is reopening the comment period on the 1995 proposal to seek comment on the proposed amendments to permit unqualified health claims on certain foods that do not contain 10 percent or more of one of certain required nutrients, the proposed amendments to provide criteria that FDA would consider in determining whether to grant an exemption from disqualifying nutrient levels related to unqualified health claims of certain nutrients, and the proposed amendments to retain the word “may” or “might” in unqualified health claims. In addition, FDA is seeking comment on the proposed use of unlisted synonyms and abbreviated health claims. Specifically, for unlisted synonyms (i.e., terms not defined by regulation), FDA repeats its request for data or other information demonstrating that unlisted synonyms that are anchored to defined terms in nutrient content claims are reasonably understood by consumers to be synonyms of the defined terms. For abbreviated health claims, FDA seeks comments and requests data or other information regarding whether abbreviated health claims would mislead consumers.
Submit written or electronic comments by July 6, 2004.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket Nos. 1994P-0390 and 1995P-0241, by any of the following methods:
Ritu Nalubola, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301-436-2371.
In the
FDA requested comments on the 1995 proposal by March 20, 1996. On March 22, 1996 (61 FR 11793), FDA extended the comment period for 120 days, until July 18, 1996. On January 24, 1997 (62 FR 3635), FDA reopened the comment period for the 1995 proposal until March 10, 1997, to provide interested persons an opportunity to obtain and comment on an FDA study, entitled “Consumer Impacts of Health Claims: An Experimental Study” that is relevant to issues in the 1995 proposal. The agency also sought comment on two consumer research studies submitted by The Quaker Oats Co. pertaining to the use of abbreviated health claim statements (62 FR 3635 at 3636). Finally, on March 11, 1997 (62 FR 11129), FDA extended the comment period for the 1995 proposal until April 24, 1997, in response to requests to allow interested persons more time to review the studies and submit comments. Due to competing priorities, including evolving food safety issues, the agency has not yet published a final rule on the 1995 proposal.
In December 2002, FDA announced a major new initiative, the Consumer Health Information for Better Nutrition Initiative, to make available more and better information about conventional foods and dietary supplements to help American consumers improve their health and decrease their risk of contracting diseases by making sound dietary decisions. Under this initiative, the agency established a task force on Consumer Health Information for Better Nutrition (the task force). The task force was charged with the following: (1) Reporting on how the agency can improve consumer understanding of the health consequences of their dietary choices and increase competition by product developers in support of healthier diets, including how the agency should apply the “weight of the evidence” standard established under the initiative for qualified health claims in order to achieve these goals; (2) developing a framework of regulations that will give these principles the force and the effect of law; (3) identifying procedures for implementing the initiative, as well as determining the organizational staffing needs necessary for the timely review of qualified health claim petitions; and (4) developing a consumer studies research agenda designed to identify the most effective ways to best present scientifically based, truthful and nonmisleading information to consumers and to identify the kinds of information known to be misleading to consumers.
On July 11, 2003, FDA published a notice in the
Although FDA identified the minimum nutrient contribution requirement and disqualifying nutrient levels in the qualified health claim ANPRM, FDA stated that because these two topics were raised in the 1995 proposal, the agency intends to seek comments on them by reopening the comment period for the 1995 proposal (68 FR 66040 at 66045). Thus, FDA did not request comments on the minimum nutrient contribution requirement and disqualifying nutrient levels for health claims in the qualified health claim ANPRM, but is doing so today by reopening the comment period for the 1995 proposal.
In addition, one of the topics on which FDA requested comments in the qualified health claim ANPRM, and on which the agency is also reopening the comment period for the 1995 proposal, is the use of the word “may” in unqualified health claims to describe the relationship between a substance and a disease or health-related condition. Information on FDA's Consumer Health Information for Better Nutrition Initiative and a copy of the task force report can be found at
Finally, FDA is also seeking comment on the proposed use of unlisted synonyms and abbreviated health claims. For unlisted synonyms (i.e., terms not defined by regulation), FDA repeats its request for data or other information demonstrating that unlisted synonyms that are anchored to defined terms in nutrient content claims are reasonably understood by consumers to be synonyms of the defined terms. FDA also seeks comments on the current petition process in § 101.69(n) (21 CFR 101.69(n)) for synonyms and examples of synonyms that industry may be seeking to use. For abbreviated health claims, FDA seeks comments and requests data or other information regarding whether abbreviated health claims would mislead consumers.
Because of the length of time that has elapsed since publication of the 1995 proposal, and the recent availability of the task force report, FDA is interested in updating the administrative record for the 1995 proposal by seeking comments on certain topics before issuing a final rule. Comments previously submitted to the Division of Dockets Management (formerly the Dockets Management Branch) do not need to be resubmitted because all comments submitted to the previously listed docket numbers will be considered in any final rule to the 1995 proposal. As noted in section I of this document, FDA is seeking comments on three topics within the scope of the 1995 proposal and identified in the task force report and qualified health claim ANPRM: (1) The minimum nutrient contribution requirement, (2) disqualifying nutrient levels, and (3) use of the word “may” in unqualified health claims to describe the relationship between a substance and a disease or
As explained in the 1995 proposal, FDA published a final rule entitled “Food Labeling: General Requirements for Health Claims for Food” (the 1993 health claims final rule) in the
In the preamble of the 1995 proposal, FDA recognized that the 10 percent nutrient contribution requirement may have had the unintended effect of prohibiting health claims on certain foods that could be beneficial to consumers and help them maintain a balanced and healthful diet (60 FR 66206 at 66212). The agency was concerned, however, that eliminating the requirement will permit misleading health claims on foods with little or no nutritional value, such as candies or soft drinks, or will encourage overfortification of the food supply (e.g., vitamins or minerals added to soft drinks) (id.). FDA stated that the appearance of health claims on such foods would be inconsistent with Congress' intent when it enacted the health claims provisions in the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA) (Public Law 101-535) (id.). Accordingly, the agency reiterated its position that a minimum nutrient contribution requirement was a necessary component of the health claims provisions to ensure that such claims appear on foods that make a nutritional contribution to the diet and are consistent with dietary guidelines (id.). FDA further explained that if the agency were to consider revoking the 10 percent nutrient contribution requirement, it would have to establish an alternative mechanism to ensure that health claims are not made on foods with little or no nutritional value (60 FR 66206 at 66212 through 66213). The NFPA petition did not suggest any alternatives to the requirement to preclude misleading health claims on such foods. In addition, the agency tentatively concluded that the alternatives suggested in the ABA petition would not ensure that health claims were made only on foods that are consistent with dietary guidelines (60 FR 66206 at 66213).
In response to the petitioners' request, FDA proposed to maintain the 10 percent nutrient contribution requirement, but amend § 101.14(e)(6) to exempt certain fruit, vegetable, and grain products from the requirement. These products included fruit and vegetable products comprised solely of fruits and vegetables, enriched grain products that conform to a standard of identity, and bread that conforms to the standard of identity for enriched bread except that it contains whole wheat or other grain products not permitted under that standard (60 FR 66206 at 66214). FDA specifically requested comment on whether the proposed exemption should be extended to include the following items: (1) Fruit and vegetable products with added oils, sodium, sauces, syrups, or other ingredients; and (2) other foods, for example, other types of grain products such as breakfast cereals (id.).
In light of the task force report's recommendation, FDA is requesting comments on the proposed amendments to § 101.14(e)(6) in the 1995 proposal and on whether and how FDA could provide additional flexibility with respect to the 10 percent nutrient contribution requirement for foods bearing a health claim.
In addition, FDA requests comments on a specific alternative approach to the 10 percent nutrient contribution requirement that was suggested by two comments submitted on the 1995 proposal. In response to the 1995 proposal, FDA received several comments on the need for the 10 percent nutrient contribution requirement, the proposed exemptions to this requirement, and alternative approaches. With respect to alternative approaches, two of the comments proposed a nutrient density approach as an alternative to the 10 percent nutrient contribution requirement. Under this approach, if the percent of the reference daily intake (RDI) or daily reference value (DRV) of vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, protein, or fiber per RACC is the same as, or more than, the percent caloric contribution of the food per RACC (calculated on the basis of a 2,000 calorie diet), then the food would be eligible to bear a health claim. FDA is specifically seeking comments on the use of a nutrient density approach as an alternative to the current 10 percent nutrient contribution requirement. Any comments related to this alternative approach should include a rationale explaining why it is appropriate or inappropriate, and include data or other information explaining how this approach will or will not ensure that foods with little or no nutritional value do not bear health claims.
Section 403(r)(3)(A)(ii) of the act provides that a health claim may only be made for a food that
* * * does not contain, as determined by the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] by regulation, any nutrient in an amount which increases to persons in the general population the risk of a disease or health-related condition which is diet related, taking into account the significance of the food in the total daily diet, except that the Secretary may by regulation permit such a claim based on a finding that such a claim would assist consumers in maintaining healthy dietary practices and based on a requirement that the label contain a disclosure [statement] * * *.
In § 101.14, FDA established disqualifying nutrient levels for foods, with additional allowances for main dish products and meal products. A food that exceeds its established disqualifying level for any of the four disqualifying nutrients (i.e., fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium) may not bear a health claim. The general requirements for health claims allow exceptions to the disqualifying nutrient level requirement (§ 101.14(a)(4) and (e)(3)). Specifically, consistent with section 403(r)(3)(A)(ii) of the act, § 101.14(e)(3) provides that FDA may permit a health claim despite the fact that a disqualifying level of one of the four listed nutrients is present in the food, if FDA finds that such a claim will assist consumers in maintaining healthy dietary practices. If FDA makes such a determination, the health claim must be made in accordance with the regulation that makes such a finding and the label must bear a disclosure statement that complies with § 101.13(h) (21 CFR 101.13(h)) highlighting the nutrient that exceeds the disqualifying level. This disclosure statement identifies the disqualifying nutrient and refers the consumer to more information about the nutrient as follows: “See nutrition information for ______content.”
The NFPA petition requested that the disqualification levels in § 101.14(a)(4) be converted to disclosure levels under certain circumstances. The petition suggested that “the presence of one of these nutrients at the prescribed level would require disqualification only if the nutrient was found in another health claim regulation to be directly or adversely related to the disease mentioned in the claim.” The petition also stated that “[i]f the nutrient is not so directly related to the disease to which the claim refers, the regulations would require only disclosure by an appropriate referral statement in conjunction with the health claim on the label, as the regulations now require for nutrient content claims.”
In the 1995 proposal, FDA explained that a generic change in its regulations would not be consistent with the underlying goals of the NLEA (60 FR 66206 at 66222). The disqualifying nutrient levels assist consumers in constructing total daily diets that meet dietary guidelines (id.). Nevertheless, the agency tentatively found that there may be some instances where disclosure rather than disqualification is appropriate (id.). FDA proposed to continue to decide on a case-by-case basis through the petition process whether to convert disqualifying levels for health claims to disclosure levels in regulations authorizing specific health claims. However, FDA also proposed criteria that it would use to evaluate petitions requesting an exception to the prohibition in § 101.14(e)(3) against health claims for foods exceeding the disqualifying nutrient levels in § 101.14(a)(4) (id.).
Consistent with the task force report's recommendation, FDA is requesting comment on the proposed amendments to 21 CFR 101.70(f) in the 1995 proposal and on whether and how FDA could provide additional flexibility with respect to exceptions to the disqualifying nutrient levels requirement. FDA continues to believe that the current disqualifying nutrient levels assist consumers in constructing total daily diets that meet dietary guidelines (60 FR 66206 at 66222). FDA seeks comments, including scientific and consumer research that address, among other things, the effectiveness of disclosure through appropriate referral statements in lieu of the current disqualifying levels in assisting consumers to construct healthful diets. FDA is interested in research data or other information that is relevant to this issue that has become available since the publication of the 1995 proposal, as well as any ongoing research in this area.
FDA has also asked for comment on the use of disclosure and disqualifying criteria in the context of cholesterol-raising lipids in the ANPRM published in the
In the 1995 proposal, the agency explained that a common requirement in authorized health claims is a statement that development of the particular disease that is the subject of the claim depends on many factors (60 FR 66206 at 66219). FDA then tentatively concluded that this statement reminding consumers about the multifactorial nature of the disease was not necessary and could be made optional (id.). The agency based its decision upon the following considerations: (1) Information showing that consumers are generally aware that the development of major chronic diseases is dependent upon a number of different factors and (2) consideration of the requirement that authorized health claims use the term “may” or “might” (e.g., “calcium may reduce the risk of osteoporosis”). As explained in the 1995 proposal,
* * * the requirement that authorized health claims use “may” or “might” to relate the ability of the substance that is the subject of the claim to reduce the risk of the corresponding disease or health-related condition is an indication to consumers of the multifactorial nature of the disease or health-related condition. * * *
In the qualified health claim ANPRM, FDA again explained that it considered the use of the word “may” to reflect that diseases are almost always multifactorial, and that diet is only one factor that influences a person's risk for disease (68 FR 66040 at 66043). However, the agency acknowledged that, although the word “may” is intended to alert consumers that there is no certainty that any one dietary practice will, in fact, reduce an individual's risk of disease, the word “may” could instead be interpreted as a reflection of the science supporting the claim (id.). Accordingly, in the qualified health claim ANPRM, FDA requested comment on whether the agency should remove the requirement for the word “may” from unqualified health claims to eliminate the uncertainty about the science underlying claims that meet SSA (id.). The agency questioned whether there are alternatives to this change, and whether such a change would assist consumers in identifying the level of science supporting such health claims (id.).
Any comments received in response to this topic in the qualified health claim ANPRM will also be considered as comments to the 1995 proposal. If the agency determines that the word “may” or “might” should be removed from unqualified health claims to eliminate the uncertainty about the science underlying a claim that meets SSA, would a separate statement be necessary (and not be made optional as proposed in the 1995 proposal) to convey to consumers the multifactorial nature of the disease in a health claim? Would consumers be misled by a health claim stating that a substance “will” reduce the risk of a disease or health-related condition? Would consumers think that the product bearing such a health claim will benefit them without understanding that other nondietary factors may contribute equally, if not greater, to the disease risk?
In the 1995 proposal, the agency stated that it reviewed the “required elements” in each of the eight unqualified health claims that were authorized at the time of publication of the 1995 proposal to determine whether any of the required elements are unnecessary or could be made optional (60 FR 66206 at 66216). Since the publication of the 1995 proposal, the agency has authorized four additional unqualified health claims: (1) Dietary noncariogenic carbohydrate sweeteners and dental caries (§ 101.80 (21 CFR 101.80)), (2) soluble fiber from certain foods and risk of coronary heart disease (§ 101.81 (21 CFR 101.81)), (3) soy protein and risk of coronary heart
Section 403(r)(1)(A) and (r)(2)(A)(i) of the act provide that a claim that either expressly or by implication characterizes the level of a nutrient (nutrient content claim) may be made in the label or labeling of a food only if the characterization of the level made in the claim uses terms that are defined in regulations of the Secretary (and by delegation, FDA). Based on these provisions, the agency defined expressed claims as any direct statement about the level (or range) of a nutrient in the food (§ 101.13(b)(1)). In addition, it defined implied claims as nutrient content claims that describe the food or an ingredient therein in a manner that suggests that a nutrient is absent or present in a certain amount (e.g., “high in oat bran” suggests that the food is high in fiber) or that suggest that the food, because of its nutrient content, may be useful in maintaining healthy dietary practices and is made in association with an expressed claim or statement about a nutrient (e.g., “healthy, contains 3 grams of fat”) (§ 101.13(b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(ii)).
The agency has specifically defined a number of expressed nutrient content claims (e.g., “free,” “low,” “reduced,” “light,” “good source,” “high,” and “more”) and provided for their synonyms (e.g., “no,” “little,” “contains,” and “rich in”). (See e.g., 21 CFR 101.54 and 101.56.) These synonyms may be used in place of the defined term but their use must comply with all of the requirements applicable to the relevant defined term. The agency also provided for certain implied nutrient content claims in § 101.65(c) and (d).
Section 403(r)(4)(A)(ii) of the act provides that any person may petition the agency for permission to use terms in a nutrient content claim that are consistent with the terms defined by the agency by regulation. Within 90 days of the submission of such a petition, FDA shall issue a final decision denying the petition or granting such permission. In addition, § 101.69(n) sets forth the specific procedures and requirements for a petition for a synonymous term.
In its petition, NFPA requested that FDA reconsider allowing synonyms and implied nutrient content claims to be used without FDA preclearance under certain circumstances. NFPA argued that, because the regulations sharply limit the terminology that can be used to describe the level of a nutrient in a food and require “premarket clearance” of such terms, the regulations ban a host of truthful and nonmisleading labeling statements. The petition requested that FDA propose an amendment that would permit nonmisleading terms or statements that are reasonably understood by consumers to be synonyms of terms defined in subpart D of part 101 (21 CFR part 101, subpart D) to be used in product labeling when the corresponding defined term is also used in the labeling. Requesting similar amendments for implied claims, NFPA stated that such amendments would ensure that claims characterizing the level of a nutrient in a food are truthful and nonmisleading, while giving manufacturers greater freedom to construct such labeling messages creatively.
In the 1995 proposal, the agency recognized that there might be some merit to the argument that more latitude in the use of truthful, nonmisleading nutrient content claims may assist consumers in maintaining healthy dietary practices because greater flexibility in the use of these terms would provide the food industry with an increased incentive to develop more healthful products (60 FR 66206 at 66209). The agency noted that, while a plethora of uncontrolled terms would confuse consumers by diminishing the usefulness of clearly defined and limited terms, NFPA's “anchoring” concept, if properly implemented, could offer the possibility of increasing the available terms without confusing consumers (id.). The agency stated that it was granting NFPA's petition to initiate rulemaking on the use of additional synonyms anchored to authorized terms. It noted, however, that before the agency could finalize the 1995 proposal for the use of such synonyms, it would need data demonstrating that consumers will understand synonyms that are used in this manner
In the 1995 proposal, the agency proposed to add § 101.13(r) to permit the use of synonyms in labeling when they are used in accordance with one of two proposed provisions. First, proposed § 101.13(r)(1) reflects the fact that a term may be used as a synonym when the agency has specifically listed it as a synonym for a defined term by regulation (“listed synonym” or “defined term”) (60 FR 66206 at 66209). Second, FDA proposed in § 101.13(r)(2) to authorize the use of synonyms that are not specifically listed by regulation (“unlisted synonyms” or “anchored synonyms”), provided that they are anchored to defined terms, not misleading in the context of the entire label, reasonably understood by consumers to be a synonym of the defined term, and the defined term appears prominently and conspicuously on the label (60 FR 66206 at 66209 through 66210). However, the agency reiterated its concerns about consumers' ability to understand synonyms used in this manner and said that it would not be able to finalize this proposed change unless it received evidence demonstrating that consumers would be able to understand the synonyms (60 FR 66206 at 66210).
In response to the 1995 proposal, FDA received several comments that specifically addressed the use of anchored synonyms. These comments encompassed a wide variety of views regarding FDA's authority to provide for anchored synonyms and the propriety of those synonyms. None of these comments, however, provided any data,
FDA is considering whether, as an alternative to the proposed use of unlisted synonyms, to modify the existing requirements in § 101.69(n) to facilitate the agency's review of a petition for a synonymous term, if the current petition process is too burdensome. The agency requests comments on whether the current petition process in § 101.69(n) for synonyms is too burdensome, and if so, why. In addition, the agency seeks comments on how it can streamline the information currently required under § 101.69(n) to better enable the agency to determine that the use of a synonymous term is consistent with the defined term and would not be misleading. Can FDA provide more flexibility regarding the nature and amount of information or data that is currently required in a petition for approval of synonyms? Further, FDA is interested in any examples of unlisted synonyms that industry believes are limited by the current regulations, truthful and nonmisleading, and for which no premarket clearance should be required.
Current § 101.14(d)(2)(iv) requires that all information required to be in a health claim appear together in one place without other intervening material. This regulation also permits a reference statement: “See _______ for information about the relationship between ________ and _______,” with the blanks filled in with the location of the labeling containing the health claim, the name of the substance, and the disease or health-related condition (e.g., “See attached pamphlet for information about calcium and osteoporosis”), with the complete health claim appearing at the location referenced in the statement.
In its petition, NFPA requested that FDA amend § 101.14(d)(2)(iv) to permit abbreviated health claims that are accompanied by a referral statement directing the consumer to the label panel where the complete health claim appears. In the preamble to the 1993 health claims final rule, the agency stated that it did not believe that it is appropriate to use abbreviated health claims as referral statements (58 FR 2478 at 2512). FDA explained that an abbreviated health claim still constitutes a health claim because it clearly characterizes the relationship between a substance and a disease or health-related condition (id.). Further, such claims are misleading because they do not include facts that are material in light of the representation that is made and that are necessary to understand the claim in the context of the daily diet (id.). Moreover, FDA stated that the referral statement in § 101.14(d)(2)(iv) does not constitute a health claim because it does not characterize the relationship between a substance and disease or health-related condition (id.). Such a referral statement simply refers the consumer to a location where the complete health claim appears (id.). In its petition, NFPA requested that the agency reconsider this position.
In the 1995 proposal, the agency explained that a complete health claim must comply with section 403(a) and (r)(3)(B)(iii) of the act (60 FR 66206 at 66214). Section 403(a) of the act requires that all claims on a food label and in food labeling be truthful and not misleading. Section 403(r)(3)(B)(iii) of the act requires, in part, that a health claim be stated in a manner that enables the public to comprehend the information provided in the claim and to understand the relative significance of such information in the context of a total daily diet. FDA stated that, although it has long required that all information that is necessary to make a claim truthful and not misleading appear in one place, there is nothing in the act that would require that information that is required under section 403(r)(3)(B)(iii) of the act appear as part of the claim each time that it is presented on the label (60 FR 66206 at 66214 through 66215). Thus, FDA tentatively concluded that an abbreviated health claim that is a scientifically valid representation of the relationship between a substance and a disease or health-related condition may be permissible under section 403(a) of the act if it is not false or misleading (60 FR 66206 at 66215). The agency also tentatively concluded that if such an abbreviated claim included a prominent and immediately adjacent reference statement to the complete claim located elsewhere on the label, the requirements of section 403(a) and (r)(3)(B)(iii) of the act would be fulfilled (id.).
Accordingly, in the 1995 proposal, the agency proposed to amend § 101.14(d)(2)(iv) to provide for the use of an abbreviated health claim when authorized in a specific health claim regulation in subpart E of part 101 (21 CFR part 101, subpart E). Of the health claims considered in the 1995 proposal, the agency proposed to authorize an abbreviated claim for one (21 CFR 101.72), on the relationship between calcium and osteoporosis (60 FR 66206 at 66220 through 66221). Based on its review of the specific requirements of the remaining health claims, however, FDA tentatively concluded that there was no basis upon which it could propose to permit the splitting of the required elements on the food label (60 FR 66206 at 66220). The agency noted that, in the same rulemaking, it was proposing to provide the basis for shorter health claims by making optional some of the elements that are required by regulation to be included in claims (60 FR 66206 at 66214). FDA explained that if those changes are finalized, many of the complete claims will be brief enough to render consideration of abbreviated claims moot (id.).
Following the 1995 proposal, FDA conducted a consumer research study, entitled “Consumer Impacts of Health Claims: An Experimental Study,” relevant to issues in the 1995 proposal, including abbreviated health claims. In addition, the Quaker Oats Co. submitted reports of two studies, “Quaker Oatmeal On-Pack Health Claim Survey” and “Consumer Perception Study of a Statement Related to Heart Disease on the Label of Quaker Oats,” pertaining to the use of abbreviated health claims. To allow interested persons an opportunity to obtain and comment on these studies, FDA reopened the comment period on the 1995 proposal (62 FR 3635, January 24, 1997).
The agency is interested in additional comments on these studies and the use of abbreviated health claims. FDA is particularly interested in receiving consumer research data or other information that is relevant to the issue of abbreviated health claims that has become available since the 1995 proposal, as well as any ongoing research on consumer understanding of abbreviated health claims. In addition, FDA seeks comments on whether abbreviated health claims would mislead consumers. The agency is also interested in comments on whether abbreviated claims are needed given the agency's proposal to make optional some of the “specific elements” that are currently required to be included in health claims, thereby leading to shorter claims.
Finally, the agency seeks comments on whether and how the discontinued use of the word “may” in health claims (see section II.C of this document) would affect the use of or need for
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice of Negotiated Rulemaking Committee meeting.
This document announces a meeting of HUD's Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee on the Operating Fund. The purpose of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations on developing a rule for effectuating changes to the Public Housing Operating Fund Program in response to the Harvard University Graduate School of Design's “Public Housing Operating Cost Study.”
The committee meeting will be held on Tuesday and Wednesday, May 11 and 12, 2004. Each day the meeting will start at approximately 8:30 a.m. and run until approximately 5 p.m., unless the committee agrees otherwise.
The committee meeting will take place at the Westin Peachtree Plaza Hotel, 210 Peachtree Street, NW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1704; telephone: (404) 659-1400 (this telephone number is not toll-free).
Chris Kubacki, Director, Funding and Financial Management Division, Public and Indian Housing—Real Estate Assessment Center, Suite 800, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1280 Maryland Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20024-2135; telephone (202) 708-4932 (this telephone number is not toll-free). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
Through the Operating Fund program, HUD distributes operating subsidies to public housing agencies (PHAs). A regulatory description of the Operating Fund program can be found at 24 CFR part 990. The Operating Fund Formula regulations were developed through negotiated rulemaking procedures. Negotiated rulemaking for an Operating Fund Formula was initiated in March 1999, and resulted in a proposed rule, published on July 10, 2000 (65 FR 42488), which was followed by an interim rule published on March 29, 2001 (66 FR 17276). The March 29, 2001, interim rule established the Operating Fund Formula that is currently in effect.
During the negotiated rulemaking for the Operating Fund Formula, Congress in the Conference Report (H. Rept. 106-379, October 13, 1999) accompanying HUD's Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 Appropriation Act (Public Law 106-74, approved October 20, 1999) directed HUD to contract with the Harvard University Graduate School of Design (Harvard GSD) to conduct a study on the costs incurred in operating well-run public housing. Harvard GSD issued a final report, the Harvard Cost Study, on June 6, 2003. In Section 222 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-199, approved January 23, 2004), Congress directed the Secretary to conduct negotiated rulemaking with the publication of a final rule by July 1, 2004.
On March 10, 2004, HUD published a document establishing a Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee on the Operating Fund (Committee) to provide advice and recommendations on developing a rule for effectuating changes to the Public Housing Operating Fund Program in response to the Harvard Cost Study. The first meeting of the Committee was held in Washington, DC on March 30, March 31, and April 1, 2004. A second meeting was held, also in Washington, DC, on April 13-15, 2004.
This document announces a third meeting of the Committee. The Committee meeting will take place as described in the
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix) and the implementing regulations issued by the General Services Administration at 41 CFR part 102-3, HUD publishes notices in the
The agenda planned for the meeting includes discussion of issues relating to the development of changes in response to the Harvard Cost Study. The meeting will be open to the public without advance registration. Public attendance may be limited to the space available. Members of the public may be allowed to make statements during the meeting, to the extent time permits, and file written statements with the committee for its consideration. Written statements should be submitted to the address listed in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operating regulations governing the operation of the Pelham Parkway Bridge, mile 0.4, across the Hutchinson River, New York. This change would allow the bridge owner to require a thirty-minute advance notice for bridge openings between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. from July 1, 2004 through May 1, 2005. This action is necessary to facilitate bridge painting operations.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 3, 2004.
You may mail comments to Commander (obr), First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, One South Street, Battery Park Building, New York, New York, 10004, or deliver them to the same address between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (212) 668-7165. The First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, (212) 668-7195.
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments or related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-04-033), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at the address under
The Pelham Parkway Bridge has a vertical clearance of 13 feet at mean high water and 20 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing operating regulations listed at 33 CFR 117.793(a), require the draw to open on signal at all times.
The owner of the bridge, New York City Department of Transportation, requested a thirty-minute advance notice for bridge openings at the Pelham Parkway Bridge between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. from July 1, 2004 through May 1, 2005, to facilitate bridge painting operations at the bridge.
This rulemaking is necessary to facilitate the safe removal of construction personnel and equipment from the bridge after a request to open the bridge is received.
This proposed change would allow the owner of the Pelham Parkway Bridge to require a thirty-minute advance notice for bridge openings between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. from July 1, 2004 through May 1, 2005, to facilitate the safe evacuation of construction personnel and equipment from the draw after a bridge opening request is received.
The Coast Guard believes this rule is reasonable in order to provide for the safety of the construction personnel working on the bridge, and because the Hutchinson River is navigated predominantly by commercial vessels that already provide advance notice for their bridge openings.
The bridge painting work is best accomplished during the warmer weather conditions. As a result, we have implemented a shortened 30-day comment period for this proposed rule to insure this rulemaking becomes effective by the requested start date to take advantage of the better weather conditions for bridge painting.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security.
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation, under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS, is unnecessary.
This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge will continue to open on signal for vessel traffic provided the thirty-minute notice is given.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under section 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this proposed rule would not have a
This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge will continue to open on signal for vessel traffic provided the thirty-minute notice is given.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environment documentation because it has been determined that the promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges are categorically excluded.
Bridges.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
2. From July 1, 2004 through May 1, 2005, § 117.793 is temporarily amended by adding a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
(d) The draw of the of the Pelham Parkway (Shore Road) Bridge, at mile 0.4, shall open on signal; except that from July 1, 2004 through May 1, 2005, between 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. each day, the draw shall open after at least a thirty-minute advance notice is given by calling the New York City Highway Radio (Hotline) Room.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes establishing security zones around passenger vessels and vessels carrying Certain Dangerous Cargo (CDC) while they are in the navigable waters of the Captain of the Port (COTP) Hampton Roads zone. These security zones would mitigate potential terrorist acts and would enhance the public and maritime safety and security. These proposed security zones would prohibit entry into or movement within 100-yards of passenger vessels and vessels carrying CDC.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 3, 2004.
You may mail comments and related material to the Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Hampton Roads, 200 Granby Street, Suite 700, Norfolk, Virginia 23510. The Waterways Management Branch of the Marine Safety Office maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the USCG Marine Safety Office Hampton Roads between 9:30 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
LT Mike Dolan, Chief of Waterways Management, USCG Marine Safety Office Hampton Roads, at (757) 668-5590.
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05-04-067), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. You may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Hampton Roads at the address under
Terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, inflicted catastrophic human casualties and property damage. These attacks highlighted terrorists' desire and ability to utilize multiple means in different geographic areas to successfully carry out their mission.
Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia and Flight 93, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has issued several warnings concerning the potential for additional terrorist attacks within the United States. The October 2002 attack on a tank vessel, MV LIMBURG, off the coast of Yemen and the prior attack on the USS COLE demonstrate the maritime terrorism threat. These attacks manifest a continuing threat to U.S. maritime assets as described in the President's finding in Executive Order 13273 of August 21, 2002 (67 FR 56215, September 3, 2002) that the security of the U.S. is endangered by the September, 11, 2001 attacks and that such disturbances continue to endanger the international relations of the United States.
The U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) in Advisory 02-07 advised U.S. shipping interests to maintain a heightened state of alert against possible terrorist attacks. MARAD more recently issued Advisory 03-06 informing operators of maritime interests of increased threat possibilities to vessels and facilities and a higher risk of terrorist attack to the transportation community in the United States.
The ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq have made it prudent for U.S. ports and waterways to be on a higher state of alert because the Al Qaeda organization and other similar organizations have declared an ongoing intention to conduct armed attacks on U.S. interests worldwide.
Due to increased awareness that future terrorist attacks are possible, the Coast Guard, as lead federal agency for maritime homeland security, has determined that the Captain of the Port must have the means to be aware of, detect, deter, intercept, and respond to asymmetric threats, acts of aggression, and attacks by terrorists on the American homeland while maintaining our freedoms and sustaining the flow of commerce. The security zones are established around all passenger vessels or vessels carrying CDC that are anchored, moored, or underway within the Captain of the Port Hampton Roads zone. A security zone is a tool available to the Coast Guard that may be used to control vessel traffic operating in the vicinity of passenger vessels and vessels carrying CDC.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a 500-yard security zone around passenger vessels and vessels carrying CDC while they are in the COTP Hampton Roads zone, as defined in 33 CFR 3.25-10.
The security zone would assist the Coast Guard by preventing other vessels or persons from engaging in terrorist actions against these vessels by controlling the movement of persons and other vessels from the surface to the bottom of the water in a 500-yard radius around these vessels. Vessels traveling within 500 yards of the subject vessels would be required to slow to the minimum safe speed that would allow them to navigate safely and avoid a collision, allision, or grounding. All vessels and persons would be prohibited from entering within 100 yards of the subject vessels without permission from the COTP Hampton Roads or his or her designated representative.
The Coast Guard believes the establishment of these security zones is necessary for the following reasons:
1.
2.
The COTP would notify the maritime and general public by marine information broadcast of the periods during which individual security zones would be enforced. While in effect around a moving vessel, each zone would be enforced by law enforcement agency vessels. While in effect around a moored vessel, each zone would be enforced by a designated law enforcement agent shoreside or by a law enforcement agency vessel waterside. The COTP may enlist the aid and cooperation of any Federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency to assist in the enforcement of the regulation.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This finding is based on the relatively small percentage of ships that would fall within the applicability of the regulation, the relatively small size of the limited access area around each ship, the minimal amount of time that vessels will be restricted in course or speed when the zone is being enforced, and the ease with which vessels may transit around the affected area. In addition, vessels that may need to enter the zones may request permission on a case-by-case basis from the COTP Hampton Roads or his designated representatives.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit in the security zone near a passenger vessel or a vessel that is carrying CDC.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Mike Dolan at Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Hampton Roads, Waterways Management Branch, at telephone number (757) 668-5590.
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. We invite your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a “tribal implication” under the Order.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370F), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore this rule is categorically excluded under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because this rule establishes a security zone.
A draft “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a draft “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
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.
2. Add § 165.503 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Under § 165.33, no vessel or person may approach within 100 yards of a passenger vessel or vessel carrying a CDC within the Captain of the Port Hampton Roads zone, unless authorized by the COTP Hampton Roads or his or her designated representative.
(3) The COTP Hampton Roads may notify the maritime and general public by marine information broadcast of the periods during which individual security zones have been activated by providing notice in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.
(4) A security zone in effect around a moving vessel will be enforced by a law enforcement vessel. A security zone in effect around a moored vessel will be enforced either by a law enforcement agent shoreside or by a law enforcement vessel waterside, or both.
(5) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone within 100 yards of a passenger vessel or vessel carrying a CDC must contact the COTP Hampton Roads on VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) or telephone number (757) 668-5555 or (757) 484-8192 to seek permission to transit the area. All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary security zone, May 27 through May 30, 2004, encompassing the waters of the Potomac River in order to safeguard a large number of high-ranking officials and spectators from terrorist acts and incidents. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of persons and property, and prevent terrorist acts or incidents. This rule prohibits vessels and people from entering the security zone and requires vessels and persons in the security zone to depart the security zone, unless specifically exempt under the provisions in this rule or granted specific permission from the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 19, 2004.
You may mail comments and related material to Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Building 70, Ports and Waterways Department, Baltimore, Maryland, 21226-1791. The Ports and Waterways Department of Coast Guard Sector Baltimore maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the Ports and Waterways Department of Coast Guard Sector Baltimore between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Mr. Ronald L. Houck, at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Branch, at telephone number (410) 576-2674.
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05-04-057), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the Ports and Waterways Department of Coast Guard Sector Baltimore at the address under
Terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, inflicted catastrophic human casualties and property damage. These attacks highlighted the terrorists' ability and desire to utilize multiple means in different geographic areas to increase their opportunities to successfully carry out their mission, thereby maximizing loss of life and destruction of property using multiple terrorist acts.
Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia and Flight 93 in Pennsylvania, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has issued several warnings concerning the potential for additional terrorist attacks within the United States. The threat of maritime attacks is real as evidenced by the October 2002 attack on a tank vessel off the coast of Yemen and the prior attack on the USS COLE. These attacks manifest a continuing threat to U.S. assets as described in the President's finding in Executive Order 13273 of August 21, 2002 (67 FR 56215, September 3, 2002) that the security of the U.S. is endangered by the September, 11, 2001 attacks and that such disturbances continue to endanger the international relations of the United States. See also Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks, (67 FR 58317, September 13, 2002); Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism, (67 FR 59447, September 20, 2002). The ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and conflict in Iraq have made it prudent for U.S. ports and waterways to be on a higher state of alert because the Al Qaeda organization and other similar organizations have declared an ongoing intention to conduct armed attacks on U.S. interests worldwide.
The Captain of the Port is establishing a security zone to address the aforementioned security concerns and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against a large gathering of spectators and high-ranking officials at or near the National Mall in Washington, DC would have. This temporary security zone applies to all waters of the Georgetown Channel of the Potomac River, from the surface to the bottom, between the Long Railroad Bridge to the Arlington Memorial Bridge and all waters in between, including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin from May 27 through May 30, 2004. Vessels underway at the time this security zone is implemented will immediately proceed out of the zone. We will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners to further publicize the security zone and any revisions to the zone. This security zone is issued under authority contained in 50 U.S.C. 191 and 33 U.S.C. 1226.
Except for Public vessels and vessels at berth, mooring or at anchor, this rule temporarily requires all vessels in the designated security zone as defined by this rule to depart the security zone. However, the COTP may, in his discretion grant waivers or exemptions to this rule, either on a case-by-case basis or categorically to a particular class of vessel that otherwise is subject to adequate control measures.
On Saturday, May 29, 2004, nearly 59 years after the end of World War II, the National World War II Memorial will be dedicated in Washington, DC at 2 p.m. local time. The Memorial Day weekend celebration on the National Mall will culminate an 11-year effort to honor America's World War II generation. The official dedication celebration will span 4 days, and includes several “Tribute to a Generation” dedication events. The security zone will be in effect from May 27 through May 30, 2004.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
The operational restrictions of the security zone are tailored to provide the minimal interruption of vessel operations necessary to provide immediate, improved security for persons, vessels, and the waters of the Potomac River in Washington, DC. Additionally, this security zone is temporary in nature and vessels and facilities can appeal to the Captain of the Port for a waiver of the requirements of the security zone. Any hardships experienced by persons or vessels are outweighed by the national interest in protecting high ranking officials and the public at large from the devastating consequences of acts of terrorism, and from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to operate or transit on the Georgetown Channel of the Potomac River, from the surface to the bottom, between the Long Railroad Bridge (the most eastern bridge of the 5-span, Fourteenth Street Bridge complex) to the Arlington Memorial Bridge and all waters in between, including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin. This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because vessels with compelling interests that outweigh the port's security needs may be granted waivers from the requirements of the security zone.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Mr. Ronald L. Houck, at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. We invite your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a “tribal implication” under the Order.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
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.
2. Add § 165.T05-057 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(2) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on VHF channel 16 (157.8 MHz) to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative.
(c)
(d)
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for an extension and revision of the currently approved information collection, under the Lamb Promotion, Research, and Information Program.
Comments must be received by July 6, 2004.
Send comments to Kenneth R. Payne, Chief; Marketing Programs Branch, Room 2638-S; Livestock and Seed Program; Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA; STOP 0251; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC 20250-0251. Comments may also be submitted electronically to
The American Lamb Board (Board) utilizes a variety of forms to carry out its responsibilities under the Act and Order. Such forms include a background information form, application for refund, monthly remittance report form, application for certified organizations, a nomination form for appointment to the Board, and a statement of certification form. The forms require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the program, and their use is necessary to fulfill the intent of the Act. Such information can be supplied without data processing equipment or outside technical expertise. In addition, there are no additional training requirements for individuals filling out the forms. The forms are simple, easy to understand, and place as small a burden as possible on the person required to file the information.
The timing and frequency of collecting information are intended to meet the needs of the industry while minimizing the amount of work necessary to fill out the required reports. In addition, the information included on these forms is not available from other industry sources because such information relates specifically to individuals or organizations subject to the provisions of the Act.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) 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 or other forms of information technology. Comments should be sent to Kenneth R. Payne, Chief; Marketing Programs Branch, Room 2638-S; Livestock and Seed Program; Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA; STOP 0251; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC 20250-0251. Comments may also be submitted electronically to
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 (60 FR 44978, August 29, 1995), this notice announces the Agricultural Research Service's (ARS) intention to request an extension of a currently approved information collection, Form AD-761, USDA Patent License Application for Government Invention that expires November 30, 2004.
Comments must be received within sixty-five (65) calendar days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Contact June Blalock, USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Room 4-1158, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131; Telephone Number 301-504-5989.
Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from June Blalock, USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer by calling 301-504-5989.
Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 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, such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
Comments may be sent to USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Room 4-1158, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131. 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.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of Availability.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing the availability of FSIS Directive 5000.2, “Review of Establishment Data by Inspection Program Personnel.” In December 2003, the Agency issued FSIS Notice 54-03 “Review of Establishment Data by Inspection Program Personnel” to clarify that FSIS inspection program personnel have access to a wide range of establishment food safety records under the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems regulations and to ensure that inspection program personnel understand that certain food safety records kept by the establishment are subject to review on a regular basis. FSIS has revised Notice 54-03 and is reissuing it as an FSIS Directive.
Copies of FSIS Directive 5000.2, “Review of Establishment Data by Inspection Program Personnel,” are available from the FSIS Docket Clerk, FSIS Docket Room, Room 102, 300 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700. An electronic copy of the document is also available on the Internet at:
Dr. Lynn Dickey, Director, Regulations and Petitions Policy Staff, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-5627.
Under the FSIS HACCP regulations, establishments are required to conduct a hazard analysis to determine the food safety hazards reasonably likely to occur in their production processes and to identify the preventive measures that they can apply to control those hazards (9 CFR 417.2(a)). Whenever a hazard
In addition, the HACCP regulations require that establishments maintain certain records that document the establishments' HACCP plans (9 CFR 417.5). These records include, among other records, the written hazard analysis prescribed by 9 CFR 417.2(a), including all documentation that supports that analysis (9 CFR 417.5(a)). The HACCP regulations also require that establishments retain certain HACCP-related records, including records that document verification procedures and results, for a certain period of time. For slaughter activities or refrigerated products, establishments are required to retain records for at least one year (9 CFR 417.5(e)). For frozen preserved, or shelf-stable products, establishments are required to retain records for at least two years (9 CFR 417.5(e)). All records required under the HACCP regulations must be available to FSIS for official review and copying (9 CFR 417.5(f)). FSIS verifies the adequacy of an establishment's HACCP plan through various means, including on-site observations, record reviews, and sample collections and analyses (9 CFR 417.8).
Establishments may conduct certain testing or monitoring activities as part of their HACCP plans, or as programs that could affect the hazard analysis but that may or may not be referenced in the HACCP plan. For example, establishments may perform testing or monitoring activities as a part of a prerequisite program or conduct product testing to comply with the specifications of business customers. Because the results of such testing and monitoring activities could affect the establishment's hazard analysis, FSIS considers records that document the results of any monitoring or of any testing conducted by an establishment as supporting documentation for the hazard analysis, which, under 9 CFR 417.5, must be maintained by the establishment and be made available for FSIS review.
Furthermore, because the HACCP regulations require that establishments retain certain HACCP-related records for at least one year, or for frozen, preserved, or shelf-stable products, for at least two years, FSIS expects that establishments will retain records that document the results of any testing or any monitoring activities, including records that document the results of tests conducted to meet a purchaser's specifications, for this same period of time. The Agency has determined that such records are subject to the record retention provisions of the HACCP regulations because they document procedures and results that FSIS inspection program personnel may rely on to verify the adequacy of an establishments' HACCP plan. Records that document verification procedures and results are subject to the HACCP record retention provisions in 9 CFR 417.5 (e).
FSIS issued Notice 54-03 in December of 2003 to inform FSIS inspection program personnel that they should be aware of all monitoring and of all testing related to food safety conducted by an establishment and to verify these records as part of the HACCP inspection procedures. The Agency reissued the notice in April of 2004 as an FSIS Directive to make it consistent with Directive 10,010.1, “Microbiological Testing Program for
Directive 5000.2, as did Notice 54-03, instructs FSIS inspection program personnel to examine an establishment's testing and monitoring results to determine whether these documents indicate that the establishment has failed to recognize and correct any food safety concerns. Thus, the directive makes clear that records that document the results of any testing and of any monitoring related to food safety that are performed by an establishment, whether such activities are incorporated into the establishment's HACCP plan, referenced in a HACCP plan, or considered as separate food safety activities, are supporting documentation for the establishment's hazard analysis. The Agency expects that establishments will make such records available to FSIS inspection program personnel upon request.
To enhance its inspection program personnel's understanding of the policies described in FSIS Directive 5000.2, and to assist inspection program personnel develop the critical thinking skills that they need to apply these policies in the establishment setting, FSIS has issued new scenarios under its Interactive Knowledge Exchange (IKE) service. IKE is a tool available to all Field Operations employees to assist them in keeping current and correlated on regulatory requirements, directives, notices, HACCP, Sanitation SOP, and FSIS sampling programs.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to better ensure that the public, and in particular minorities, women, and persons with disabilities, are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at
The Regulations.gov Web site is the central online rulemaking portal of the United States government. It is being offered as a public service to increase participation in the Federal government's regulatory activities. FSIS participates in Regulations.gov and will accept comments on documents published on the site. The site allows visitors to search by keyword or Department or Agency for rulemakings that allow for public comment. Each entry provides a quick link to a comment form so that visitors can type in their comments and submit them to FSIS. The Web site is located at
FSIS also will make copies of this
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
A Plan of Operation has been submitted by Master petroleum, Inc., for the purpose of mining for gold within the trinity 1-8 Placer Mining Claim. The proposal is to mine within Trinity County from four sites totaling about 22 acres in the vicinity of Big East Fork and Canyon Creeks.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by May 20, 2004. The draft environmental impact statement is expected in February, 2005, and the final environmental impact statement is expected in May, 2005.
Send written comments to Mike Mitchell, Supervisory Natural Resource Officer, c/o USFS, PO Box 1190, Weaverville, CA 96093. For further information, mail correspondence to Mike Mitchell, Supervisory Natural Resource Officer, c/o USFS, PO Box 1190, Weaverville, CA 96093.
Larry McLean, USFS Minerals Officer, phone 530-623-1767.
The purpose of the project is to extract locatable minerals (valuable mineral deposits) while providing resource protection on National Forest System lands as authorized by the United States mining laws of May 10, 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21-54), which confer a statuary right to enter upon the public lands to search for minerals.
The proposed action is to approve the Plan of Operations submitted by Master petroleum, Inc. to open pit mine about 22 acres of National Forest Lands on the Trinity 1-8 Placer Mining Claims, CAMC #605515. This is a high bench placer mining operation. The plan is to remove vegetation, stockpile topsoil for reclamation, remove and process valuable placer deposits down to bedrock, replace processed waste in excavation, and reclaim the site. It is estimated that the operation will process approximately 1,138,478 tons of gold bearing placer gravels from about 22 acres over a 25-year period. The Project is located at the confluence of Canyon Creek and the Big East Fork of Canyon Creek off Canyon Creek Road. Legal description is; T.35N., R.10W., Section 30, Mount Diablo Meridian.
Joyce Andersen, District Ranger, c/o USFS, PO Box 1190, Weaverville, CA 96093.
The District Ranger will decide whether the proposed action will proceed as proposed or as modified by an alternative. Also, she will decide which recommended mitigation measures and monitoring requirements will be applied.
The Forest Service will advertise the proposal in the Trinity Journal and Record Searchlight, newspapers of general distribution. The project will be listed in the Shasta-Trinity Forest Quarterly NEPA calendar. Adjacent landowners, known interested parties, and government agencies will be sent letters describing the project and identifying the project timeframe. Scoping comments are requested by May 20, 2004. A public meeting is scheduled for May 13, 2004, in the Weaverville Fire Hall.
Issues will be identified as a result of scoping. At this time project planners expect removal of vegetative cover, visual quality, and water quality concerns to be voiced in the scoping process.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. The Forest Service is seeking information that planners may not be aware of, and/or issues (points of dispute, debate concern, or disagreement) regarding potential effects of the proposal to authorize mining on the Trinity 1-8 Placer Mining Claims.
A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.
Forest Service, USDA
Notice of meeting.
The Flathead County Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Kalispell, Montana May 4th and May 19th. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss future RAC projects.
The meetings will be held from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.
The meetings will be held at the Flathead County Commissioner's Office, Commissioner's Conference Room, 800 South Main, Kalispell, Montana, 59901.
Kaaren Arnoux, Flathead National Forest, Administrative Assistant, (406) 785-5251.
The meeting is open to the public. Time will be available for public input on potential projects the committee may be discussing.
USDA, Forest Service.
Notice of issuance of agency directives.
The Forest Service is revising its policy for assessing fees for organizational camps located on National Forest System lands. These revisions are necessary to conform agency policy with the requirements in the National Forest Organizational Camp Fee Improvement Act of 2003. These revisions involve amendments and interim directives (IDs) to Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2340 (Amendment 2300-2004-2); FSM 2700, zero code chapter (Amendment 2700-2004-3); FSM 2720 (Amendment 2700-2004-4); and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2709.11, chapter 30 (ID 2709.11-2004-1), chapter 40 (ID 2709.11-2004-2), and chapter 50 (Amendment 2709.11-2004-2).
These amendments and IDs are effective May 4, 2004.
These amendments and IDs are available electronically from the Forest Service via the World Wide Web at
Kenneth Karkula, Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Resources Staff (202-205-1426), USDA, Forest Service.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.
Notice of availability of record of decision.
Lawrence T. Yamamoto, Responsible Federal Official for projects administered under the provisions of Public Law 83-566 in the State of Hawaii, is hereby providing notification that a record of decision to proceed with the installation of the Lahaina Watershed Flood Control project, signed April 20, 2004, is available.
The record of decision documents that the Lahaina Watershed Flood Control project used all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to meet the goals established in the National Environmental Policy Act. The FEIS has been prepared, reviewed, and accepted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
For further information or single copies of this record of decision contact: Lawrence T. Yamamoto, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 4-118, P.O. Box 50004, Honolulu, Hawaii, 96850, telephone: (808) 541-2600 ext. 100.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.
Notice of availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Pursuant to section 012(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Regulations (7 CFR part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared and published for a proposed federally assisted project by the Little Wood River Irrigation District, Blaine County, Idaho.
Copies of the Final EIS are available on the NRCS Web site at
This EIS addresses the effects of constructing a proposed gravity pressurized irrigation delivery system. The document analyzes the proposed action and two other alternatives, including no action. The proposed action includes the construction, operation and maintenance of two High-Density Polyethylene pipelines that provide irrigation water under gravity pressure to 8,800 irrigated acres and to 2,000 acres with booster pumps. The proposed action would cross the Little Wood River channel three times, several county roads, U.S. Highways 20 and 26, and adjacent to historic Little Wood River floodplains. This document describes Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of three Alternatives on ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, and health conditions.
Natural Resources Conservation Service and Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.
Notice.
This document announces the process to be used in determining priority watershed and the details of the enrollment categories that will be used in the FY 2004 sign-up for the Conservation Security Program.
The administrative actions announced in the notice are effective on May 4, 2004.
Craig Derickson, Conservation Security Program Manager, Conservation Operations Division, NRCS, P.O. Box 2890, Washington, DC 20013-2890, telephone: (202) 720-3524; fax: (202) 720-4265. Submit e-mail to:
In a proposed rule published in the
NRCS proposed to establish eligibility requirements that included determinations based, among other things, on priority watersheds and enrollment categories that will be used for identifying, classifying, and prioritizing contracts to be funded. While NRCS received and reviewed thousands of thoughtful comments no alternative to the watershed approach was found that was a fairer way to operate the program under the constraints in place, since no final rule has yet been adopted. This document announces the process to be used in determining priority watershed and the details of the enrollment categories that will be used in the FY 2004 sign-up.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, (2004 Appropriations) amended section 1241(a)(3) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)(3)) to remove the permanent program cap of $3.773 billion and set the funding level of the Conservation Security Program (CSP) for fiscal year 2004 at $41.4 million. As a result, the program will operate as a capped entitlement in FY 2004 and is currently authorized as an uncapped entitlement in future fiscal years. Further, by law, NRCS cannot incur technical assistance costs for NRCS employees or approved technical assistance providers in excess of 15 percent of the program funds expended in a fiscal year. Therefore, as noted in the proposed rule, ranking and prioritization must occur to insure that stewardship is rewarded and national natural resource issues are addressed.
Given capped spending authority in FY 2004 and as proposed in the President's 2005 Budget, the Administration wants to focus CSP's activities and benefits in high-priority regions that meet the environmental and philosophical goals of the program. Using watersheds allows for improved watershed-scale planning, program execution, and monitoring and evaluation of results, creating a first-of-its-kind conservation program.
Watersheds form discrete natural spatial units. Using watersheds to allocate funding and assistance will enhance the evaluation of producers' stewardship efforts. Watersheds will reflect the environmental progress we expect from CSP in ways we couldn't expect from working along county or State lines. NRCS expects that the selection of different watersheds for each sign-up will result in every farmer and rancher being potentially eligible for CSP over the next 8 years. No qualifying producer will be left out. A watershed rotation reduces the administrative burden on applicants while it reduces the technical assistance (TA) costs associated with NRCS and its technical service providers processing a large number of applications that cannot be funded.
Rotating the watersheds allows producers to plan and prepare for CSP participation in future sign-ups. Watersheds allow NRCS to focus finite resources on areas with both a documented need for resource enhancement and a strong stewardship tradition. For producers in a selected watershed, this approach means better service when applying, and a higher chance of getting selected. For producers not yet in a selected watershed it means time to improve conservation performance through access to other Farm Bill programs and access to technical service from agency personnel unencumbered by CSP responsibilities. The CSP self-assessment exercise will allow producers to assess their conservation performance for the CSP sign-up and allow for management concerns to be addressed.
The staged implementation will allow agency personnel to refine, streamline, and perfect application procedures as well as self-assessment and self-screening processes.
While the selected process for determining the priority watersheds and the establishment of the enrollment categories will be set out in the CSP final rule, NRCS needs to immediately make those determinations for use in FY 2004, in order to have a sign-up and enrollment of participants in this fiscal year. NRCS will therefore begin using the watershed priority process and will establish enrollment categories immediately upon publication of this notice. This provides a practical means of implementing the program in FY 2004 and staying within the statutory funding and technical assistance constraints. Without moving expeditiously to establish the processes for utilizing priority watersheds and enrollment categories, the CSP will not be implemented in the current fiscal year. The final rule will provide notice
The Department published a proposed rule and sought public comment on the preferred CSP alternative, which included a watershed approach (7 CFR 1469.5(e)). The watershed approach may be used with or without an expenditure cap. This would allow NRCS the flexibility to implement the program to reflect changing statutory language.
Three key considerations provide the basis for identifying priority watersheds for the CSP program: (1) To ensure that CSP's limited resources are focused first on the most achievable environmental performance areas; and (2) to address management constraints based on the statutory limit on technical assistance (15 percent); and (3) to provide maximum flexibility for program implementation (
Focusing participation on high-priority watersheds will reduce the administrative burden on applicants and the costs of processing a large number of applications that would not be funded. For example, the economic analysis conducted by NRCS as required for rule development estimates that as many as 500,000 producers might apply for enrollment in each CSP sign-up and that current funding would only support about 3,000 contracts. Therefore, the majority of applicants would have completed an extensive application process only to be denied participation due to the limitation on funding. Additionally, NRCS would have incurred technical assistance costs in program eligibility determinations for up to 497,000 producers who would not be able to participate in CSP. NRCS believes that focusing the program's resources on applications that have a high probability of getting funded would maximize environmental benefits because a higher portion of the TA would be used to support actual conservation practices and activities.
Three broad options were considered for ranking watersheds. Each option contains certain common attributes: quantifiable, objective data that can be aggregated at the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) scale; support the philosophy and intent of CSP to support on-going conservation stewardship of working agricultural lands; and improve the Agency's ability to measure program performance (determining benefits and effects).
Option 1 was suggested in the proposed CSP rule as one method of ranking watersheds. The rule proposes that NRCS “* * * identify watersheds (using eight-digit hydrologic unit codes developed by the U.S. Geological Survey) around the Nation based on objective information from natural resource, environmental quality, and agricultural activity data. The watershed prioritization process will consider several factors, including the vulnerability of surface and groundwater quality, the potential for excessive soil quality degradation, and the condition of grazing land in the watershed.” (69 FR 198, January 2, 2004)
The NRCS's NRI data representing the factors cited in the rule were aggregated by 8-digit hydrologic unit (HUC) delineations to test this Option. Option 1 has the advantage of NRCS experience with this approach, since it was used as a basis for developing State level allocations for initial EQIP implementation. Additionally, NRCS collects and analyzes the NRI data and, therefore, the Agency has a high degree of understanding about how the data can be used. This familiarity also lends itself to quicker, more efficient problem solving and data manipulation. On the other hand, the NRI was not designed for estimate reliability at the 8-digit HUC level, thus estimates may be inadequate in some watersheds.
Option 2 is almost exclusively focused on identifying and rewarding those farmers and ranchers meeting the very highest standards of conservation and environmental management on their operations. At the first level, allowable land uses are analyzed (cropland, pasture, grazing lands, orchards/vineyards) for possible eligibility. In the next level each land use is defined by predominant management categories such as: managing fertilizers and nutrients; managing pests; managing crops and soil; and managing grazing land. Each category is further represented by a selection of conservation practices as surrogates to represent prevalence of practice adoption within watersheds.
A map would be generated from the NRCS performance measurement system data showing areas of concentrated practice adoptions. This map would then be used alone or in combination with other surrogate factors to overlay 8-digit HUC maps. The resulting composite map would show which watersheds have some of the best conservation stewards working with NRCS. A similar process would be used for all management categories and, ultimately, a comprehensive watershed ranking map could be produced. Option 2 has the advantages of supporting the philosophy and intent of CSP to recognize ongoing conservation stewardship of working agricultural lands; the performance data is collected and analyzed by the Agency, which has a high degree of understanding about how the data can be used resulting in quicker, more efficient problem solving and data manipulation. On the other hand, the option does not account for stewardship activities that occur without NRCS assistance, captures only recent conservation activities, and gives no recognition to stewards who have been practicing conservation over the long-term. Additionally, this option relies heavily on NRCS administrative data. Analysis is limited to recognition of stewardship, and little or no recognition is accorded natural resource vulnerability.
Option 3 is a combination watershed approach that uses quantifiable datasets and a rigorous sorting procedure consisting of four phases: I. Land use eligibility, II. Input intensities, III. Stewardship, and IV. Development of a composite ranking.
The first phase, land use representation, is defined by the four land uses eligible for CSP: cropland, rangeland, pastureland, and orchards/vineyards. The 1997 NASS National Agriculture Census (1997 Census) data on land in farms were used to examine the spatial distribution of these eligible lands across the country. The 1997 Census data also reflect incidental land
Phase II of the approach was designed to represent input intensities, defined as additions to the land that have a potential to cause soil and water quality degradation. Input intensities data drawn from the 1997 Census included acreage where pesticides, fertilizers, and manure were applied. These data were aggregated by 8-digit HUC and ranked nationally. The input intensity maps identify watersheds with the greatest concentration of acreage receiving inputs, as a representation of potential soil and water quality deterioration.
Phase III of the combination approach was stewardship activity, defined as prevalence of historic and recent application of conservation practices. NRI data were used to show the distribution of watersheds having the greatest extent of applied conservation practices for the period 1982 to 1997. The 2002 NRCS performance data were used to show the distribution of watersheds having the greatest acreages of more recently applied conservation practices selected to reflect an operator's stewardship. These data—historic and current conservation—were aggregated by 8-digit HUC and ranked nationally to identify watersheds with the greatest “presence” of historic and on-going conservation practice adoption.
In the final phase, the watershed rankings from phases I-III were combined to reflect a summation watershed rank reflecting all three criteria areas. Then the watersheds were re-ranked to reflect overall national status in regards to land use eligibility, input intensities, and stewardship. Watersheds were then ranked against each other within their respective Economic Research Service Farm Production Regions to allow more balanced comparisons among States, to produce a national perspective of potential priority watersheds, and to represent the broadest range of operation types and sizes.
This regional context was selected to distribute limited funds and numbers of contracts as widely across the landscape as possible in the first sign-up. Although not used for the FY 2004 selection, the data can also be extracted at the State boundary level with a process which would take interstate watersheds into consideration. This process will be described in the final rule.
Option 3 has the advantages of accounting for concentration of eligible land, input intensity, and stewardship information in combination; the Agency has experience with the components of this approach; and there is a high degree of understanding about how the data can be properly used on a national scale.
The ranking process outlined above would array watersheds based on an analysis of quantitative data relative to watershed condition and stewardship activities. A need remains however, to take into account economic, political, institutional, and public acceptance considerations.
To account for these, watersheds may be prioritized and targeted for attention and action according to a number of criteria and weighting factors. Applying weighting factors to the ranked watersheds may be appropriate to achieve the intent of the program. There are several ways that weighting might occur.
Typically, public dollars and restoration efforts have been directed to those watersheds with the most severe conditions, the most sensitive to change, or those that are at risk of impairment. This is particularly true with water quality concerns. The approach tries to ensure that those landscapes that are the most damaged, sensitive, or at risk receive additional consideration in the prioritization process by assigning a higher weighting factor for degree of degradation or vulnerability (input intensities).
The CSP is a voluntary program that provides financial and technical assistance to producers who advance conservation and improvement of soil, water, air, energy, plant and animal life, and other conservation purposes on eligible Tribal and private working lands. The approach: (a) Identifies and rewards farmers and ranchers meeting the high standards of conservation and environmental management on their operations; (b) creates incentives for other producers to meet those same standards; and (c) provides public benefits for future generations. In short, the philosophy and intent of the CSP is to “reward the best and motivate the rest.” This option could apply high weighting factors for stewardship activities in the prioritization process.
Another way to prioritize watersheds for CSP implementation is to focus on those watersheds that have a balance of natural resource problems and on-going stewardship activities. This approach focuses on those watersheds where input intensity is not the highest and stewardship could be increased measurably—that is, watersheds where there is a good chance to improve baseline conditions. They have some resource vulnerabilities, but not the most severe. They also have some stewardship activities, but not necessarily the highest participation. This scenario might use higher yet equal weighting factors for input intensities and stewardship, so that it is their combination that is represented in the final analysis.
After watersheds have been ranked and prioritized, additional management overlays were considered to enhance the efficiency of program delivery and to align more closely with State priorities.
This option focuses on administrative efficiencies primarily to reduce the costs of program administration, ensure the eligible contracts can be processed in a timely manner, reduce the participant's time in preparing application data, and, ultimately, to assist in performance appraisal of the program's effectiveness. It is intended that this option be used as one of several final checks in combination with the ranked/prioritized watersheds. Option 1 has the advantages of providing more predictable successes during the first year of a new and innovative conservation program, and further refines the pool of resource-priority watersheds to those that also had the capacity for effective implementation.
States and Tribes may view the proposed watershed ranking and prioritization as redundant to their own efforts at prioritization, especially with efforts such as the Unified Watershed Assessment (UWA) process instituted by the States during the mid-1990's. The UWAs continue to be widely used by some States as a basis for much of their water quality and watershed restoration work accomplished under Clean Water Act section 319 programs and other Federally-funded efforts.
This option acknowledges the important contributions of existing State analyses, and provides a mechanism for
There are a variety of options to consider when applying ranking and prioritization to 8-digit watersheds for purposes of program delivery. The proposed strategy centers on a combination of three distinct analysis levels.
1. Rank watersheds using a composite approach that integrates distribution of eligible land uses, input intensities, and stewardship.
2. Apply weighting factors to the ranking criteria to select watersheds that best represent the philosophical foundation of CSP—treating resource issues and rewarding conservation stewards.
3. Using the set of prioritized watersheds, apply considerations of administrative capacity and opportunity for State-based considerations, as well as testing the watershed concept.
In managing the CSP, the NRCS will establish and operate a system of enrollment categories whenever necessary to conduct the program in an orderly fashion and remain within any statutory budget and technical assistance caps as described in the proposed rule (7 CFR part 1469.6). In addition to the statutorily mandated contract requirements, the categories will consider the applicants' current stewardship (soil condition, tillage intensity, existing practices and activities) and will sort producers based on these factors. Categories will also examine producers' willingness to perform additional conservation activities during their CSP contract.
All applications which meet the sign-up criteria will be placed in an enrollment category regardless of available funding. An application will be placed in the highest enrollment category level for which the application qualifies. For example, on cropland, a farmer must meet the minimum requirements for soil quality and water quality within a watershed designated for a particular sign-up to be eligible for CSP. Upon entry, the NRCS will determine the appropriate enrollment category placement for the application. Using the category descriptions below, if the cultivated cropland: (1) Meets a Soil Conditioning Index at least 0.1 and a Soil Tillage Intensity Rating less than 30; (2) has at least three Stewardship Practices from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) has at least three Stewardship Activities from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; and (4) the applicant agrees to: (a) Move to the next Tier or to complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities from the list included in this document; and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment and evaluation activity, then the application will be placed in the highest category, Category A. Applications that meet minimum program eligibility requirements as defined in 7 CFR part 1469, but do not include additional conservation treatment, will be placed in the lowest category, Category H.
Within all eligible watersheds, funding would be distributed to applications beginning with the highest enrollment category; Category A. Criteria are designed to assure that funding will be directed first to those producers with the highest commitment to conservation. Once the highest enrollment category applications are funded within eligible watersheds, the next category would be funded, etc. Funding would be distributed to each succeeding category nationally until funding is exhausted. Situations will arise where applications have multiple lands uses that fall into different enrollment categories. The final rule will describe how the agency will sort such applications.
This notice will serve as the public notice of the construction of the enrollment categories. Tables illustrating the enrollment category described are available online at
The SCI is a numerical rating tool used to identify the trend of soil carbon for given conservation management systems, which are key indicators of the status of soil quality. A positive SCI indicates the trend is upward; a negative SCI indicates the trend is downward. The STIR model was selected in order to give a numerical rating to identify operations in which soil disturbance is kept to a minimum. The rating allows for flexibility in tillage methods and crop rotations as well as removes any confusion with regard to semantics or local terminology for tillage system descriptions. The category limits for the STIR ratings on cultivated cropland approximate the differentiations made in the Residue Management Standard 329. Tillage practices commonly referred to as no-till, direct seed, or zero tillage under practice 329A would be those with the lowest STIR. Mulch tillage (329B) and operations that rotate tillage between no-till and other more intense forms would be described in the next categories. Tillage systems with STIR ratings greater than 100 are typically considered conventionally tilled systems.
STIR was selected as a criteria tool because it adds value to the SCI criteria and does not give bias toward any specific landscape, soil, or cropping region. The SCI provides trends in soil carbon which leads to a host of benefits, but positive SCIs associated with very low-erosive landscapes may still allow for significant tillage and favor operators with these conditions rather than their conservation stewardship. STIR limits disturbance and provides for increased improvement in soil physical properties. The limits on soil disturbance also provide an energy benefit from the reduction in field operations.
Stewardship Practices and Stewardship Activities are intended to identify the long-term steward that has applied conservation over the years as the need or new technology has arisen. The more practices, the more likely it is that the operator has continually addressed conservation and resource needs. However, there may be instances where conservation measures may have been applied in order to bring or maintain marginally suitable lands into production or into compliance with the farm legislation. For this reason, Stewardship Activities address the actions taken to reduce or eliminate negative environmental impacts in and outside the boundaries of the field. Stewardship Practices and Activities must be in place two years prior to sign-up to qualify.
Enhancement Activities are designed to identify those who are willing to increase their level of stewardship, since remaining static in one's conservation efforts is not a top priority of CSP. Efforts to increase environmental stewardship by moving to the next tier or intensifying current management take top priority in the
Category B must: (1) Meet a SCI of at least zero and STIR less than 30; (2) have at least three Stewardship Practices from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at least three Stewardship Activities from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to (a) move to the next CSP Tier or complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities from the lists in this document and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment and evaluation activity.
Category C must: (1) Meet a SCI of at least 0.1 and a STIR less than 60; (2) have at least two Stewardship Practices from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at least two Stewardship Activities from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to: (a) complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities from the lists in this document; and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment and evaluation activity.
Category D must: (1) Meet a SCI at least zero and a STIR less than 60; (2) have at least two Stewardship Practices from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at least two Stewardship Activities from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to: (a) complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities from the lists in this document; and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment and evaluation activity.
Category E must: (1) Meet a SCI at least 0.1 and STIR less than 60; (2) have at least two Stewardship Practices from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at least one Stewardship Activity currently applied from the list included in this document; and (4) agree to: (a) complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities from the lists in this document; and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment and evaluation activity.
Category F must: (1) Meet a SCI of at least zero and STIR less than 100; (2) have at least one Stewardship Practice from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at least two Stewardship Activities from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to: (a) complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities from the lists in this document; and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment and evaluation activity.
Category G must: (1) Meet a SCI of at least zero and STIR less than 100; (2) have at least one Stewardship Practice from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have any number of Stewardship Activities from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities from the lists included in this document.
Category H must: meet the minimum program eligibility requirements as defined in 7 CFR 1469 and not agree to do additional actions.
Stewardship practices are those key conservation actions that have an NRCS practice standard in the Field Office Technical Guide. The stewardship practices eligible to determine enrollment categories above for cropland, orchards, vineyards, horticultural crops, and permanent hayland with their corresponding identification number include:
• Alley Cropping (311)
• Atmospheric Resources Quality Management (370)
• Conservation Crop Rotation (328)
• Constructed Wetland (656)
• Contour Buffer Strips (332)
• Contour Orchard and Other Fruit Area (331)
• Cover Crop (340)
• Cross Wind Ridges (589A)
• Cross Wind Trap Strips (589C)
• Drainage Water Management (554)
• Field Border (386), Filter Strip (393)
• Forage Harvest Management (511)
• Hedgerow Planting (422)
• Herbaceous Wind Barriers (603)
• Hillside Ditch (423)
• Irrigation System-Micro-irrigation (441)
• Irrigation Water Management (449)
• Lined Waterway or Outlet (468)
• Low Disturbance Cropping (No-till/Strip-till/Direct Seed) (329d1)
• Pasture and Hay Planting (512)
• Residue Management—No Till (to reseed permanent hayland or No Till of 5 years or more in cultivated crop land) (329A)
• Riparian Forest Buffer (391)
• Riparian Herbaceous Cover (390)
• Sediment Basin (350)
• Soil Salinity Management-Nonirrigated (571)
• Stripcropping (585)
• Structure for Water Control (587)
• Water & Sediment Control Basin (638)
• Well Decommissioning (351)
• Windbreak/Shelterbelt Establishment (380)
Stewardship activities are those key conservation actions that do not have a specific practice standard in the FOTG but have defined local actions necessary that, when applied to a field, mitigate off-site resource damage or improve soil and/or water quality.
The stewardship activities eligible to determine enrollment categories above for cropland, orchards, vineyards, horticultural crops, and permanent hayland:
• Addition of soil amendments such as polyacrylamide (PAM) and gypsum
• Collection of yield data
• Conduct spraying activities and other control of noxious/invasive weeds on a spot basis
• Harvest crops from center of field outward
• Increase amount of sod or perennial crops in rotation for a minimum of 2 years
• Irrigation system efficiency evaluations and adjustment
• Low energy precision application sprinklers
• Minimize the use of pesticides by using pest resistant plant varieties
• Precise application of nutrients, such as banding, side dressing, injection, fertigation
• Split nitrogen application to meet crop needs
• Surge irrigation
• Test soil and/or plant tissue on annual basis
• Use a risk assessment tool such as WINPST to select the least toxic product to minimize harmful effects on human health and environmental resources
• Use established local integrated pest management guidelines to set economic thresholds for pests to
• Use of beneficial insects
• Use of on-farm weather station data
• Use of tensiometers or other techniques to assess and improve irrigation water management
• Use of yield monitoring data.
• Weather stations installation and/or data collection
Pasture condition scoring was chosen for assessing CSP enrollment categories for the pasture lands use because the condition of the pasture plant community and soil surface directly impact and reflect upon soil and water quality. The highest pasture condition will yield the highest soil quality and the most sustained discharge of the highest quality water.
The key publication assessing rangeland health “Interpreting Indicators for Rangeland—Technical Reference 1734-6 and two publications about pasture condition scoring, “Guide to Pasture Condition Scoring” and “Pasture Condition Score Sheet” can found at the USDA-NRCS Web site:
Rangeland health is the status of the soil, water, and biological resources in rangeland ecosystems. The Rangeland Health Assessment evaluates the degree to which the integrity of the soil, vegetation, water, and air, as well as the ecological processes of the rangeland ecosystem, is balanced and sustained. Integrity is defined as maintenance of the structure and functional attributes characteristic of a particular locale, including normal variability.
The key publication assessing rangeland health, “Guide to Pasture Condition Scoring” and “Pasture Condition Score Sheet” can found at the USDA-NRCS Web site:
Category A must: (1) Meet an overall Pasture Condition Score of at least 45; (2) have at least three Stewardship Practices from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at least three Stewardship Activities from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to: (a) Move to the next Tier or to complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities; and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment and evaluation activity.
Category B must: (1) Meet an overall Pasture Condition Score of at least 35; (2) have at least three Stewardship Practices from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at least three Stewardship Activities from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to: (a) Move to the next Tier or to complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities; and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment and evaluation activity.
Category C must: (1) Meet an overall Pasture Condition Score of at least 45; (2) have at least two Stewardship Practices from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at least two Stewardship Activities from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to: (a) Complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities; and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment and evaluation activity.
Category D must: (1) Meet an overall Pasture Condition Score of at least 35; (2) have at least two Stewardship Practices from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at least two Stewardship Activities from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to: (a) Complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities; and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment and evaluation activity.
Category E must: (1) Meet an overall Pasture Condition Score of at least 35; (2) have at least two Stewardship Practices from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; (3) have at least one activity from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities, or an on-farm project or assessment and evaluation activity.
Category F must: (1) Meet an overall Pasture Condition Score of at least 25; (2) have at least one Stewardship Practice from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; and (3) and at least two Stewardship Activities from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; and (4) agree to complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities, or conduct an on-farm project or assessment and evaluation activity.
Category G must: (1) Meet an overall Pasture Condition Score of at least 25; (2) have at least one Stewardship Practice from the list included in this
Category H must: Meet the minimum program eligibility requirements as defined in 7 CFR 1469 and not agree to do additional actions.
Stewardship practices are those key conservation actions that have an NRCS practice standard in the FOTG. The stewardship practices eligible to determine enrollment categories above for pasture with their corresponding identification number include:
• Animal Trails and Walkways (575)
• Brush Management (314)
• Channel Bank Vegetation (322)
• Fence (for sensitive area protection only) (382)
• Grassed Waterway (412)
• Grazing Land Mechanical Treatment (516)
• Irrigation Water Management (449)
• Pasture and Hay Planting (512)
• Pipeline (516), Pond (378)
• Prescribed Burning (338)
• Riparian Herbaceous Cover (390)
• Soil Salinity Management—Nonirrigated (571)
• Spring Development (574)
• Streambank and Shoreline Protection (580)
• Stream Crossing (578)
• Watering Facility (614)
• Waste Utilization (pathogen and organic runoff control) (633)
• Water & Sediment Control Basin (638)
• Water Well (642)
The stewardship activities on pasture include:
• Added functional group pastures
• Confinement animal wastes, if applied, are injected
• Grazing distribution facilitated by watering locations, based on locally identified distances between water locations and water available in each sub-divided pasture
• Improved laneways.
• Increased plant diversity—forbs and legumes greater than 40%
• Integrated pest management activities for weeds, brush, insects, or diseases
• Interseeding
• Livestock ponds and watering areas have controlled access point or outfitted with watering facility
• Pastured bottomland or riparian area treated as a separate grazing treatment unit and alternative watering facilities in place
• Rotate feeding and salting areas
• Rotational grazing
• Test soil and/or plant tissue test every 3 years on pastures not receiving confinement wastes
• Use of decision support tools in developing grazing management plans, such as Grazing Lands Spatial Analysis Tool (GSAT), Nutritional Balance Analyzer (NUTBL), Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP), etc.
• Where confinement wastes are applied, test soil and/or plant tissue on annual basis prior to next application
• Where fertilizer nitrogen is applied, split applications to meet current crop needs.
Category A must: (1) Meet a Rangeland Health Assessment of none to slight for all three attributes; (2) practice Prescribed Grazing, plus have three or more Stewardship Practices or Activities from the list included in this document in place for two or more years, including brush management or range seeding resource needs adequately addressed; and (3) agree to: (a) move to the next Tier or to complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities; and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment or evaluation activity from the list included in this document by the end of the third contract year.
Category B must: (1) Meet a Rangeland Health Assessment of none to slight for all three attributes; (2) practice Prescribed Grazing, plus have two or more Stewardship Practices or Activities from the list included in this document in place for two or more years, including brush management or range seeding resource needs adequately addressed; and (3) agree to: (a) move to the next Tier or to complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities; and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment or evaluation activity from the list included in this document by the end of the third contract year.
Category C must: (1) Meet a Rangeland Health Assessment of none to slight for two attributes and slight to moderate for one attribute; (2) practice Prescribed Grazing, plus have three or more Stewardship Practices or Activities from the list included in this document in place for two or more years, including brush management or range seeding resource needs adequately addressed; and (3) agree to: (a) complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities; and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment or evaluation activity from the list included in this document by the end of the third contract year.
Category D must: (1) Meet a Rangeland Health Assessment of none to slight for two attributes and slight to moderate for one attribute; (2) practice Prescribed Grazing, plus have two or more Stewardship Practices or Activities from the list included in this document in place for two or more years, including brush management or range seeding resource needs adequately addressed; and (3) agree to: (a) complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities; and (b) conduct an on-farm project or assessment or evaluation activity from the list included in this document by the end of the third contract year.
Category E must: (1) Meet a Rangeland Health Assessment of none to slight for two attributes and slight to moderate for one attribute; (2) practice Prescribed Grazing, plus have two or more Stewardship Practices or Activities from the list included in this document in place for two or more years, including brush management or range seeding resource needs adequately addressed; and (3) agree to complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities or conduct an on-farm project or assessment or evaluation activity from the list included in this document by the end of the third contract year.
Category F must: (1) Meet a Rangeland Health Assessment of none to slight for one attribute and slight to moderate for two attributes; (2) practice Prescribed Grazing, plus have two or more Stewardship Practices or Activities from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; and (3) agree to complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities or conduct an on-farm project or assessment or evaluation activity from the list included in this document by the end of the third contract year.
Category G must: (1) Meet a Rangeland Health Assessment of slight to moderate for two attributes; (2) practice Prescribed Grazing, plus have one or more Stewardship Practices or Activities from the list included in this document in place for two or more years; and (3) agree to complete two additional Stewardship Practices or Activities from the list included in this document by the end of the third contract year.
Category H must: Meet the minimum sign-up requirements.
Stewardship Practices eligible to determine enrollment categories above for rangeland with their corresponding identification number include:
• Animal Trails and Walkways (575)
• Brush Management (314)
• Channel Bank Vegetation (322)
• Channel Stabilization (584)
• Fence (for sensitive area protection only) (382)
• Grazing Land Mechanical Treatment (548)
• Pipeline (516)
• Pond (378)
• Range Planting (550)
• Riparian Herbaceous Cover (390)
• Spring Development (574)
• Streambank and Shoreline Protection (580)
• Stream Crossing (578)
• Watering Facility (614)
• Water and Sediment Control Basin (638)
• Wetland Enhancement (659)
• Wetland Restoration (657)
Stewardship Activities eligible to determine enrollment categories above for rangeland include:
• Application of monitoring protocols
• Brush and weed management utilizing integrated techniques that include follow-up treatment
• Management that provides for upland wildlife habitat improvement
• Management that provides for wetland wildlife habitat improvement
• Management that provides for wetland shallow water wildlife habitat improvement
• Managing vegetative fuels to reduce wildfire hazards
• Modify brush management design to create a mosaic or pattern to enhance wildlife habitat linkages and corridors
• Participating in grassbanking
• Prescribed burn prescriptions designed to create a mosaic or pattern to enhance wildlife habitat linkages and corridors
• Use of decision support tools in developing grazing management plans, such as Grazing Lands Spatial Analysis Tool (GSAT), Nutritional Balance Analyzer (NUTBL), Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP), etc.
• Vegetation manipulation to reduce sediment and other pollutants in surface runoff.
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Notice of meeting.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) has scheduled its regular business meetings to take place in Washington, DC on Tuesday and Wednesday, May 11-12, 2004, at the times and location noted below.
The schedule of events is as follows:
The meetings will be held at the Marriott at Metro Center Hotel, 775 12th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
For further information regarding the meetings, please contact Lawrence W. Roffee, Executive Director, (202) 272-0001 (voice) and (202) 272-0082 (TTY).
At the Board meeting, the Access Board will consider the following agenda items:
All meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. Sign language interpreters and an assistive listening system are available at all meetings. Persons attending Board meetings are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other participants.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a conference call of the New York Advisory Committee will convene at 10 a.m. and adjourn at 11 a.m., Wednesday, May 19, 2004. The purpose of the conference call is to arrive at a potential project idea for future SAC activities.
This conference call is available to the public through the following call-in number: 1-800-473-7796, access code: 23504499. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls not initiated using the supplied call-in number or over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls using the call-in number over land-line connections. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and access code number.
To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting Aonghas St-Hilaire of the Eastern Regional Office, 202-376-7533 (TTY 202-376-8116), by 4 p.m. on Tuesday, May 18, 2004.
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce is extending the time limit of the preliminary results of the three new
May 4, 2004.
Scot Fullerton or Matt Renkey, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1386 or (202) 482-2312, respectively.
Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and section 351.214(i)(1) of the regulations require the Department to issue the preliminary results of a new shipper review within 180 days after the date on which the new shipper review was initiated, and final results of review within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued. However, if the Department determines that the issues are extraordinarily complicated, section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and section 351.214(i)(2) of the regulations allow the Department to extend the deadline for the preliminary results to up to 300 days after the date on which the new shipper review was initiated.
The Department received timely requests for new shipper reviews of the antidumping order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China from the following: Qingdao Xiyuan Refrigerate Food Co., Ltd. (Qingdao Refrigerate); Siyang Foreign Trading Corporation (Siyang) and its producer, Anhui Golden Bird Agricultural Products Development Co., Ltd.; and Yancheng Fuda Foods Co., Ltd. (Yancheng Fuda). These requests were filed in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section 351.214 of the Department's regulations. On October 31, 2003, the Department initiated these new shipper reviews covering the period July 1, 2002, through August 31, 2003 for Siyang, and September 1, 2002 through August 31, 2003 for Qingdao Refrigerate and Yancheng Fuda.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department may extend the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of a new shipper review if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated. The Department has determined that these cases are extraordinarily complicated, and the preliminary results of these new shipper reviews cannot be completed within the statutory time limit of 180 days. The Department finds that these new shipper reviews are extraordinarily complicated because there are a number of issues that must be addressed. For example, the Department has issued supplemental questionnaires requesting additional information regarding ownership issues, as well as supplemental questions regarding relationships between various companies. Given the issues in this case, the Department may find it necessary to issue additional supplemental questionnaires in these new shipper reviews. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and section 351.214(i)(2) of the regulations, the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of the preliminary results to
July 30, 2004.
This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of extension of time limit.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the time limit for the final results of the 2001-2002 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina. This review covers five exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States and the period May 11, 2001 through November 30, 2002.
May 4, 2004.
Brian J. Sheba at (202) 482-0145 or Donna Kinsella at (202) 482-0194, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Enforcement Group III, Office Eight, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On December 31, 2002, the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association ( collectively “petitioners”) requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina in response to the Department's notice of opportunity to request a review published in the
The Department initiated the review for all companies. On January 17, 2003, petitioners withdrew their request for review of 14 companies and the Department granted this request.
Based on withdrawals of request for review from Compania Apicola Argentina S.A. and Mielar S.A., the Department rescinded the review with respect to these two companies.
Pursuant to the time limits for administrative reviews set forth in section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), the original time limit for the preliminary results of review was September 2, 2003. On July 23, 2003, we extended the time limit for the preliminary results of review to December 8, 2003.
The Department published its preliminary results on January 6, 2004.
Pursuant to the time limits for administrative reviews set forth in section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), the original time limit for the final results of review was May 5, 2004. It is not practicable to complete this review within this time limit due to a number of significant case issues, such as sales below cost, the delayed collection of cost data, high inflation, and currency devaluation. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the final results of review until May 21, 2004 in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and § 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of intent to rescind antidumping duty administrative review.
On September 30, 2003, we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty review with respect to Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A. (TAMSA).
May 4, 2004.
Kristina Boughton or Charles Riggle at (202) 482-8173 or (202) 482-0650, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement Office 5, Group II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On August 1, 2003, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the
TAMSA submitted a letter on December 9, 2003, certifying that during the period of review (POR) neither it, nor its U.S. affiliate entered subject merchandise for consumption, or sold, exported, or shipped subject merchandise for entry for consumption in the United States.
The products covered by this order are large diameter seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes produced, or equivalent, to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A53, ASTM A106, ASTM A333, ASTM A334, ASTM A589, ASTM A795, and the American Petroleum Institute (API) 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below. The scope of this order also includes all other products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of specification, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below. Specifically included within the scope of this order are seamless pipes greater than 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) up to and including 16 inches (406.4 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish.
The seamless pipes subject to this order are currently classifiable under the subheadings 7304.10.10.30, 7304.10.10.45, 7304.10.10.60, 7304.10.50.50, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, and 7304.59.80.70 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Large diameter seamless pipe is used primarily for line applications such as oil, gas, or water pipeline, or utility distribution systems. Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids and gasses in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A106 standard may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various American Society of Mechanical
Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally low temperature uses or conditions are anticipated, standard pipe may be manufactured to ASTM A333 or ASTM A334 specifications.
Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification.
Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A589) and seamless galvanized pipe for fire protection uses (ASTM A795) are used for the conveyance of water.
Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A106, ASTM A53, API 5L-B, and API 5L-X42 specifications. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by meeting the metallurgical requirements and performing the required tests pursuant to the respective specifications. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers.
The primary application of ASTM A106 pressure pipes and triple or quadruple certified pipes in large diameters is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. A more minor application for large diameter seamless pipes is for use in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants, as well as in power generation plants and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, ASTM A106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications.
The scope of this order includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below, whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line, and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of this order. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A53, ASTM A106, ASTM A333, ASTM A334, ASTM A589, ASTM A795, and API 5L specifications shall be covered if used in a standard, line, or pressure application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below.
For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in ASTM A106 applications. These specifications generally include ASTM A161, ASTM A192, ASTM A210, ASTM A252, ASTM A501, ASTM A523, ASTM A524, and ASTM A618. When such pipes are used in a standard, line, or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the scope of this order.
Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are:
A. Boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A53, ASTM A106, ASTM A333, ASTM A334, ASTM A589, ASTM A795, and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications.
B. Finished and unfinished oil country tubular goods (OCTG), if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications.
C. Products produced to the A335 specification unless they are used in an application that would normally utilize ASTM A53, ASTM A106, ASTM A333, ASTM A334, ASTM A589, ASTM A795, and API 5L specifications.
D. Line and riser pipe for deepwater application,
With regard to the excluded products listed above, the Department will not instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to require end-use certification until such time as petitioner or other interested parties provide to the Department a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the products are being utilized in a covered application. If such information is provided, the Department will require end-use certification only for the product(s) (or specification(s)) for which evidence is provided that such products are being used in a covered application as described above. For example, if, based on evidence provided by the petitioner, the Department finds a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that seamless pipe produced to the A-335 specification is being used in an A-106 application, it will require end-use certifications for imports of that specification. Normally the Department will require only the importer of record to certify to the end-use of the imported merchandise. If it later proves necessary for adequate implementation, the Department may also require producers who export such products to the United States to provide such certification on invoices accompanying shipments to the United States.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and CBP's purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive.
On December 9, 2003, TAMSA submitted a letter certifying that neither it, nor its U.S. affiliate, Siderca Corporation, directly or indirectly, exported or sold for consumption in the United States any subject merchandise during the POR. The petitioner did not comment on TAMSA's no shipment claim. The Department conducted a shipment data query on SLP produced by TAMSA during the POR, and based on this query, we found that TAMSA had made shipments to the United States during the POR, some of which entered under the HTSUS numbers for subject merchandise. From past reviews we had reason to believe that these shipments were of merchandise not included in the scope of this order. See Notice of Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Mexico, 68 FR 40627 (July 8, 2003).
To confirm that TAMSA made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, on March 4, 2004, we requested entry documents for selected months of the POR and for a sample of HTSUS numbers covered by the scope of this order for various shipments by TAMSA and/or its affiliate.
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 14 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 19 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version included. Any interested party may request a hearing within 14 days of publication of this notice. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. We are issuing this notice is in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and section 351.213(d) of the Department's regulations.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of closed meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, notice is hereby given that the Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award will meet Wednesday, June 2, 2004. The Judges Panel is composed of nine members prominent in the field of quality management and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The purpose of this meeting is to Review the 2004 Baldrige Award Cycle; Discussion of Senior Examiner Training for Site Visits and Final Judging Interaction; Judges' Survey of Applicants; and Judging Process Improvement Discussion for Final Judges' Meeting Preparation. The applications under review contain trade secrets and proprietary commercial information submitted to the Government in confidence.
The meeting will convene June 2, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. and adjourn at 4:30 p.m. on June 2, 2004. The entire meeting will be closed.
The meeting will be held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Building 222, Red Training Room, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899.
Dr. Harry Hertz, Director, National Quality Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, telephone number (301) 975-2361.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 7, 2004, that the meeting of the Judges Panel will be closed pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, as amended by section 5(c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, P.L. 94-409. The meeting, which involves examination of Award applicant data from U.S. companies and a discussion of this data as compared to the Award criteria in order to recommend Award recipients, may be closed to the public in accordance with section 552b(c)(4) of Title 5, United States Code, because the meetings are likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person which is privileged or confidential.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment incidental to conducting oceanographic surveys in the Southeast Caribbean Sea and adjacent Atlantic Ocean has been issued to Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO).
Effective from April 16, 2004, through April 15, 2005.
A copy of the IHA and the application are available by writing to Mr. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Marine Mammal Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning the contact listed here. A copy of the application containing a list of the references used in this document may be obtained by writing to this address or by telephoning the contact listed here and is also available at:
Kimberly Skrupky, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2322, ext 163.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Permission may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as ”...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Under section 3(18)(A), the MMPA defines “harassment” as:
any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
The term “Level A harassment” means harassment described in subparagraph (A)(i). The term “Level B harassment” means harassment described in subparagraph (A)(ii).
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.
On August 7, 2003, NMFS received an application from LDEO for the taking, by harassment, of several species of marine mammals incidental to conducting a seismic survey in the Southeast Caribbean Sea and adjacent Atlantic Ocean. The Southeast Caribbean Sea and Atlantic Ocean cruise will be off the coast of Venezuela in an area extending from 59° to 71° W and 10° to 15° N. This survey work was originally scheduled to be conducted from January 11, 2004, through February 21, 2004, but has been rescheduled for 17 April through 28 May, 2004. The operations will partly take place in the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of several nations in the Southeast Caribbean (including Venezuela, Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao, Trinidad, and Tobago) as well as in international waters.
The purpose of the project is to obtain information on island arc movements and geometry which can be used to better understand the history and mechanical processes by which island arcs accrete to continents, deeply buried rocks are exhumed, and folded belts and different types of sedimentary basins form along oblique collision zones. The interplay of the crust and subcrustal lithosphere during arc accretion and metamorphic belt exhumation and subduction polarity reverses will be examined. In addition, the flow patterns of the sublithospheric mantle beneath the plate boundary and northern South America as a whole and beneath the right lateral shear zone between them will be examined.
The seismic survey will involve two vessels which will conduct the seismic work. The source vessel, the
The procedures to be used for the seismic study will be similar to those used during previous seismic surveys by LDEO in the equatorial Pacific Ocean (Carbotte
The
In addition, the ocean floor will be mapped with an Atlas Hydrosweep DS-2 multibeam 15.5-kHz bathymetric sonar, and a 3.5-kHz sub-bottom profiler will also be operated along with the multibeam sonar. Both of these sound sources will be operated simultaneously with the airgun array. For more information regarding the Atlas Hydrosweep DS-2 multibeam bathymetric sonar, please refer to previous
During the airgun operations, the vessel will travel at 7.4-9.3 km/hr (4-5 knots), and seismic pulses will be emitted at intervals of 60-90 seconds (OBS lines) and approximately 20 sec (MCS lines). The 20-second spacing corresponds to a shot interval of about 50 m (164 ft). The 60-90-second spacing along OBS lines is to minimize reverberation from previous shot noise during OBS data acquisition, and the exact spacing will depend on water depth. The 20-airgun array will include airguns ranging in chamber volume from 80 to 850 in
Along the selected lines, the OBSs will be positioned by the
When airgun operations with the 20-gun array commence after a period without airgun operations, the number of guns firing will be increased gradually (“ramped up,” also described as a “soft start”). Operations will begin with the smallest gun in the array (80 in
Along with the airgun operations, two additional acoustical data acquisition systems will be operated during most or all of the cruise. The ocean floor will be mapped with an Atlas Hydrosweep DS-2 multibeam 15.5-kHz bathymetric sonar, and a 3.5-kHz sub-bottom profiler will also be operated along with the multibeam sonar. These sound sources are commonly operated from the
The Atlas Hydrosweep is mounted on the hull of the
The sub-bottom profiler is normally operated to provide information about the sedimentary features and the bottom topography that is simultaneously being mapped by the Hydrosweep. The energy from the sub-bottom profiler is directed downward by a 3.5 kHz transducer mounted in the hull of the
Additional information of the work proposed for 2004 is contained in the proposed authorization notice (68 FR 60086, October 21, 2003), and in the application and in the Final Caribbean Environmental Assessment for oceanographic surveys in the Southeast Caribbean Sea and adjacent Atlantic Ocean (LDEO, 2003) which are available upon request (see
The calibration study data from a 2003 Gulf of Mexico survey indicate that the size of the 180-dB isopleth is dependent on water depth. A safety radii of 900 m (2935 ft) from the array at water depths greater than 1000 m (3281 ft), was estimated in the application and proposed IHA. The calibration measurements have indicated that the 180-dB isopleth for water depths between 100 and 1000 m (328 and 3281 ft) is 1350 m (4429 ft) and the isopleth for water depths less than 100 m (328 ft) is 3500 m (11483 ft). These new data modify the take estimates for marine mammals. Refer to the Estimates of Take in this Notice for the updated take estimates.
In light of the new data, NMFS has imposed additional mitigation measures for this seismic survey. First, the size of the safety radius to be monitored will be based on water depths in addition to the array size. Second, in addition to visual observers, LDEO will use passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) whenever the vessel is operating in waters deep enough for the PAM hydrophone array to be towed. Third, LDEO will increase the number of biological observers from two to at least three, and 2 to three additional biologists will monitor the PAM system. An additional one to two observers will be in the
NMFS has also determined that takes of pinnipeds are not likely to occur in the action area. Therefore, hooded seals are not included in this IHA.
A notice of receipt of the LDEO SE Caribbean application and proposed IHA was published in the
During a 2003 study in the northern Gulf of Mexico, LDEO obtained measurements of received sound levels as a function of distance from LDEO's airgun arrays for shallow water and deep water propagation. The calibration results from the 2003 Gulf of Mexico surveys were completed recently and are now available. As a result, depth-specific 180-dB distances will be used as safety radii, instead of the depth-independent predicted ones with the precautionary 1.5 times factor, used during previous surveys. For the 20-gun array, the safety radius for 180 dB for water depths greater than 1000 m (3281 ft), as derived from the conservative acoustic model, is 900 m (2953 ft). For water depths between 100 and 1000 m (328 and 3281 ft), the safety radius is 1350 m (4429 ft). For water depths less than 100 m (328 ft), the safety radius is 3500 m (11483 ft) for 180 dB. The shallow water measurements are based on empirical data from the Gulf of Mexico study, and are larger than previously predicted. This has resulted in a reanalysis of harassment take estimates, as explained later in this document.
It is true that there are no estimates of take for times when the multibeam sonar and/or sub-bottom profiler are operated without airguns. This is because the 160-dB and 180-dB isopleths of the sub-bottom profiler and multibeam are either small or the beams are very narrow, making the duration of the exposure and the potential for taking very small. As provided in the LDEO application, the 160-dB and 180-dB radii in the horizontal direction, for the sub-bottom profiler, are estimated to be near 20 m (66 ft) and 8 m (26 ft), respectively. In the vertical direction, the 160-dB and 180-dB radii are 160 m (525 ft) and 16 m (52 ft) directly below the hull-mounted transducer. For the Hydrosweep there is minimal horizontal propagation, as these signals project downward and obliquely to the side at angles up to approximately 70 degrees from the vertical, but not horizontally. For the deep-water mode (see LDEO application or 68 FR 17909, April 14, 2003 for description), below the ship these 160- and 180-dB zones are estimated to extend to 3200 m (10500 ft) and 610 m (2000 ft), respectively. However, the beam width of the Hydrosweep signal is only 2.67 degrees fore and aft of the moving vessel, meaning that a marine mammal diving (not on the surface) could receive at most 1 to 2 signals from the Hydrosweep. Because NMFS treats harassment or injury from pulsed sound as a function of total energy received, the actual harassment or injury threshold for Hydrosweep signals (approximately 10 millisec in duration) would be at a much higher dB level than that for longer duration pulses such as seismic or military sonar signals. As a result, NMFS believes that marine mammals are unlikely to be harassed or injured from the multibeam sonar or the Hydrosweep sonar due to the short
NMFS believes that other than to voluntarily ride the bow wave of the vessel (an indication that the animal is not annoyed), it is unlikely that a marine mammal would approach a moving vessel that close. If one did, the duration of exposure and of behavioral responses to these downward-directed sources would be very brief, and, NMFS believes, this brief behavioral response would not rise to the level of take.
As explained in the following responses to comments, NMFS believes that the mitigation and monitoring measures that have been imposed under the IHA are complete to the fullest extent practicable, and ensure that the takings will be limited to harassment and will result in a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals. The mitigation measures described in the proposed IHA notice have been enhanced subsequently by increased observer personnel and the recent addition of big-eye binoculars and passive acoustics to the ship's inventory. As mentioned in response to comment 3, the safety radii have also been re-calculated based on the results from the calibration study in the Gulf of Mexico in 2003 and will be applied to this seismic survey.
A ramp-up study was first proposed to be conducted by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) in 1999 (HESS, 1999). While this study has not been funded to date, NMFS believes that a basic difficulty exists for testing ramp-up effectiveness without first establishing some mode of dose-response. As a result, prior to testing ramp-up effectiveness, this type of information is currently being obtained by the Sperm Whales Seismic Study (SWSS). NMFS believes that this information is a critical component for understanding marine mammal impacts from world-wide operating seismic activities.
In that regard, LDEO has indicated that it is committed to working with MMS and the offshore seismic industry during the Gulf of Mexico calibration research work in June 2005 to coordinate efforts to study the effects of ramp-up on marine mammals while continuing its calibration study of the airgun array onboard the
NMFS notes, however, that few marine mammals were sighted by observers during most LDEO cruises in 2003 (compare, for example LDEO observer reports for seismic in the Beaufort Sea (LGL, 1999), versus LDEO observer reports off Norway (LGL, 2003)). The low number of sightings during LDEO's 2003 cruises was attributable to the distribution and abundance of the mammals, and the time of year when LDEO's 2003 cruises were conducted, not to any limitations of the capabilities or effort by the marine mammal observers. The results of all marine mammal observations during LDEO's 2003 projects, including species identification and behavior are detailed in the reports that were submitted to NMFS after the conclusion of each cruise for which an IHA has been issued. Monitoring reports for four Ewing research cruises during 2003 (GOM; Hess Deep/Eastern Pacific; Norway; Mid-Atlantic) are now available (see
In addition to shipboard personnel dedicated to visual and passive-acoustic monitoring, other personnel deploying the land instrumentation will monitor the beaches in the vicinity of the survey lines where possible. However, some of the beaches in western Venezuela will not be easily accessible.
There is a scientific methodology to estimate the probability of detecting marine mammals on the surface, as explained in detail in Buckland
A certain proportion of the population is presumed to be submerged at any given time and is therefore unavailable for detection. However, if the ship speed is slow, many of these animals would surface at some point while within visual range of observers aboard the approaching vessel. The speed of the
All LDEO estimates of potential numbers of animals take account of all these factors to the extent that available data allow. Detectability is a measure of the probability of detecting a marine mammal that is present on a vessel's trackline (i.e., g(0)). LDEO uses the most applicable detectability values as provided in Koski
Any estimate that would be made would be specific to the region and the airgun array since the estimate would depend on (1) the distance to the 180-dB radius boundary, (2) the species that occur in the area and (3) the abundance for each species. If the estimate was being made for a small array (2 GI-guns) the estimate would essentially be a weighted average of the g(0) values based on the density of the species that would be encountered since all animals on the trackline are assumed to be sighted by the Transect Theory.
However, when making the estimate for a large airgun array, one would need to consider the probability of detecting an animal at each lateral distance out to the 180-dB radius (and slightly beyond) and then averaging the probability over the whole area. One cannot assume that all animals within the estimated strip width (ESW) are seen even if they are on the surface. The number of sightings at various lateral distances (out to a truncation distance) are used to estimate the number missed within the ESW when calculating densities. The probability detection function is different for each species, but the function is most often calculated for combined groups of similar species. The actual probability detection functions are not published for most species, but some f(0) values are available. F(0) is a measure of the rate which sightability diminishes with increasing distance from the ship's trackline. So the problem is getting the actual probabilities of spotting animals at each lateral distance out to the 180-dB radius.
The assumed 180-dB distance for LDEO's standard 20-gun array operating in intermediate and deep waters is 1350 m (4429 ft) and 900 m (2953 ft), respectively. At-sea experience shows that the probability of detection at approximately 900 m lateral distance is likely to be near 0.5 - 0.6 but will vary somewhat among species. Thus the average probability of detection at all distances out to the 180-dB radius is likely to be approximately 0.7-0.9. If this is combined with the average g(0) which is probably approximately 0.9 (but needs to be calculated as described above and depends on species and group size) then an approximation of the proportion of animals present within the 180-dB radius is about 0.6 to 0.8. This is a rough estimate and does not consider species-specific and some other inputs to the calculation but is likely a reasonable estimate of the overall average number based on doing the calculation. In addition, this may be an underestimate of the fraction detected because some animals may be detected farther away (though at a at a lower probability) and that is not considered in this calculation. Nothwithstanding the uncertainties and variability, it should be noted that this level of detectability is significantly higher than the value cited by the Commission.
Another key factor in estimating the number of undetected mammals that might occur within the 180-dB radius is the fact that many marine mammals move away from an approaching seismic vessel (e.g., Richardson
Finally, it must also be recalled that the 180-dB criterion for cetaceans was developed before any data were available on Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS), or its dependence on exposure duration, in any species of marine mammal. Those interim criteria were based largely on professional judgment and incorporating a substantial precautionary element. Some TTS data, including information about the relationship of TTS thresholds to exposure duration, have subsequently become available for odontocetes and pinnipeds (e.g. Kastak
For toothed whales exposed to single short pulses, the TTS threshold appears to be, to a first approximation, a function of the energy content of the pulse (Finneran
A marine mammal within a radius of ≤100 m (≤328 ft) around a typical array of operating airguns might be exposed to a few seismic pulses with sounds pressure levels ≥205 dB, and possibly more pulses if the mammal moved with the seismic vessel and the mammal was not detected and the array was not powered-down. However, as noted above, most cetacean species tend to avoid operating airguns, although not all individuals do so. In addition, ramping up airgun arrays, which is standard operational protocol for LDEO, should allow cetaceans to move away from the seismic source and to avoid being exposed to the full acoustic output of the airgun array. It is unlikely that these cetaceans would be exposed to airgun pulses at a sufficiently high level for a sufficiently long period to cause more than mild TTS, given the relative movement of the vessel and the marine mammal. TTS would be more likely in any odontocetes that bow-ride or otherwise linger near the airguns. Bow-riding odontocetes would be at or above the surface, and thus not exposed to strong sound pulses given the pressure-release effect at the surface. However, bow-riding animals generally dive below the surface intermittently. If they did so while bow-riding near airguns, they would be exposed to strong sound pulses, possibly repeatedly. If some cetaceans did incur TTS through exposure to airgun sounds, this would very likely be a temporary and reversible phenomenon.
For these reasons (small impact zone, avoidance of appraching ship by many marine mammals, precautionary nature of the 180-dB criteria, mitigation/monitoring protocols), NMFS has determined that LDEO's activity is likely to have no more than a negligible impact on affected marine mammal stocks.
If a seismic survey vessel is limited to daylight seismic operations (12-13 hours during April/May at this location), efficiency would be much reduced. Without commenting specifically on how that would affect the present project, for seismic operators in general, a daylight-only requirement would be expected to result in one or more of the following outcomes: cancellation of potentially valuable seismic surveys; reduction in the total number of seismic cruises annually due to longer cruise durations; a need for additional vessels to conduct the seismic operations; or work conducted by non-U.S. operators or non-U.S. vessels when in waters not subject to U.S. law.
NMFS final IHA requires mitigation measures including the use of passive acoustic monitoring to improve the detection of marine mammals by indicating to the visuals observers when an animal is potentially near and prompting a shut-down when necessary. The passive acoustic monitoring system will be deployed whenever the water depth is deep enough to effectively operate the system.
Trained marine mammal observers using night vision devices (NVDs) will be on watch during periods prior to and during ramp-up from a power-down situation at night. They will also be on watch at other periods during the night, particularly if marine mammals are sighted in the seismic area during the day. In addition, NMFS is requiring that, if marine mammals are detected during daylight hours, the passive acoustic monitoring will need to continue to be operated throughout the succeeding night. LDEO is currently developing the protocols on how best to utilize passive acoustic monitoring to protect marine mammals.
At other times during the night, observers will be available, but it is not necessary or very effective for them to be on watch constantly. For reasons discussed in the previous response, marine mammals are unlikely to be seriously injured or killed by the noise from approaching seismic arrays. Thus, limiting seismic shooting to only daylight hours is unnecessary and unlikely to result in less level B harassment to marine mammals than would conducting 24-hour survey operations.
Because of the need to keep a vessel at-speed in order to successfully tow the hydrophone streamers, the vessel would need to be underway throughout the night whether or not the airguns are fired at night. Additional down-time can be anticipated each day as the vessel maneuvers all night to come back to the shut-down location 30 minutes after daylight. This is unlikely to be successful very often and will likely result in additional time needed for surveys to be completed.
In reviewing LDEO's report for the Hess Deep (Smultea and Holst 2003), it is apparent that few marine mammals would have been exposed to sound levels > 180-dB (rms) even if there had been no visual observations or power-downs. In the Hess Deep study for example, only a single whale (probably a beaked whale) was sighted near the outer perimeter of the safety zone.
Recently, LDEO completed two tests of the effectiveness of using NVDs (Smultea and Holst 2003, Appendix C; Holst 2004, Appendix B). Results of those tests indicated that the Night Quest NQ220 NVD is effective at least to 150 to 200 m (492 to 656 ft) away under certain conditions. That type of NVD is not effective at the much larger 180-dB radii applicable when a large array of airguns is in use. However, as noted in response to comment 12, it is the smaller zone where the received level is well about 180 dB where detection of any marine mammals that are present would be of particular importance. The 205-dB zone, within which TTS might occur, is likely to be approximately 100 m (328 ft) in radius. That is sufficiently within the range of the NVDs to allow some chance of detecting marine mammals visually within the area of potential TTS during ramp-up. Furthermore, a substantial proportion of the marine mammals that might be within that distance would be expected to move away either during ramp-up or, if the airguns were already operating, as the vessel approaches.
Taking into consideration the additional costs of prohibiting night-time operations and the likely low impact of the activity (given the required mitigation and monitoring), NMFS has determined that the IHA's requirements will ensure that the activity will have the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks for the following reasons. (1) Marine mammals will have sufficient notice of a vessel approaching with operating seismic airguns (at least one hour in advance), thereby giving them an opportunity to avoid the approaching array. (2) If ramp-up is required after a power-down, at least two marine mammal observers will be required to monitor the safety radius using NVDs, when necessary to improve vision, for 30 minutes before ramp-up begins and verify that no marine mammals are in or approaching the safety radius. (3) Ramp-up may not begin unless the entire 180-dB safety radius is visible (i.e., no ramp-up can begin in heavy fog or high sea states) and ramp-up may occur at night only if one airgun with a sound pressure level of at least 160 dB has been maintained during interruption of seismic activity. Therefore, the 20-gun array will not be ramped-up from a shut-down at night.
See also the response to Comment 12. During daytime, the probability of missing mammals present within the safety radius is lower than the 80 percent figure mentioned above, and the natural avoidance responses of many marine mammals are a further mitigating factor.
In regard to the Commission's statement on other duties, the night-time watch is conducted by the bridge-lookout watch which is comprised of the following personnel and schedules: (1) Mate on Watch. Other duties include weather observations, half hour navigation updates, radar monitoring and radio watch; and (2) Bridge Watch assignments; bridge watch persons are assigned only as bridge watch personnel. These individuals have no other assignments as the bridge is blacked out (except chart room). Bridge watch assignments are as follows: (1) 1600-2000 hrs: One able-bodied (AB) seaman is on watch at all times (except 30-minute meal time when watch is relieved by Master-but this is usually during daylight hours when biological observers would be working anyway); (2) 2000 to 2400 & 0000 to 0400 hrs: One able-bodied seaman and one ordinary seaman on Port and Starboard bridge watch. This is their only duty except that AB makes rounds once per watch (about 30 minutes); (3) 0400 to 0800 hrs. One AB seaman on watch. Again there is relief for breakfast but by then the daytime marine mammal observers are on watch.
Finally, NMFS notes that the monitoring methods employed on the
However, during the tens of thousands of line miles run annually by the seismic industry in the Gulf of Mexico, seismic airguns were not suspected of causing any marine mammals to strand prior to the 2002 Gulf of California beaked whale stranding event while the Ewing was engaged in a seismic survey there. Scientifically the link between the Ewing and the Gulf of California stranding is extremely tenuous (due to the distance between the stranded animals and the Ewing), and it is likely that no evidence will be available to determine whether impulse or acoustic trauma played a role in those strandings because the tissues were too decomposed to properly evaluate and the heads were not retrieved.
For the SE Caribbean research expedition, LDEO will conduct post-survey monitoring by sub-sampling for marine mammals along the
In addition, LDEO has requested marine mammal volunteers from the Centro de Investigacion de la Biodiversidad Tropical Biotropica in Venezuela to assist in marine mammal observations during transects by the
A detailed description of the Southeast Caribbean Sea and its associated marine mammals can be found in a number of documents referenced in the LDEO application as well as in the LDEO application itself, and is not repeated here. In the Southeast Caribbean Sea and adjacent Atlantic Ocean, 28 marine mammal species are known to occur within the proposed study areas. Six species are listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA): sperm, humpback, sei, fin, and blue whales, as well as West Indian manatees. The species included in this application are the sperm whale (
A discussion on potential impacts on marine mammals was provided in the
The following mitigation measures are required for the subject seismic surveys, provided that they do not compromise operational safety requirements: (1) Speed and course alteration; (2) power-down and shut-down procedures; (3) ramp-up procedures; and (4) marine mammal and sea turtle monitoring in the vicinity of the arrays through observers and passive acoustic monitoring. These mitigation measures are further described here.
These mitigation measures will incorporate use of the safety radii that have been established from the 2003 calibration study in the Gulf of Mexico. LDEO has modeled the sound pressure fields for the 20-gun array in relation to distance and direction from the airguns. The safety radii for 180 dB for water depths greater than 1000 m (3281 ft) is 900 m (2953 ft). For water depths between 100 and 1000 m (328 and 3281 ft), the safety radii is 1350 m (4429 ft). For water depths less than 100 m (328 ft), the safety radii are 3500 m (11483 ft).
The directional nature of the 20-airgun array to be used in this project is also an important mitigating factor. The airguns comprising these arrays will be spread out horizontally, so that the energy from the arrays will be directed mostly downward, resulting in lower sound levels at any given horizontal distance than would be expected at that distance if the source were omnidirectional with the stated nominal source level. Because the actual seismic source is a distributed sound source (20 guns) rather than a single point source, the highest sound levels measurable at any location in the water will be less than the nominal source level.
If a marine mammal or sea turtle is detected outside the appropriate safety radius and, based on its position and the relative motion, is likely to enter the safety radius, the vessel's speed and/or direct course will be changed in a manner that also minimizes the effect to the planned science objectives. The marine mammal activities and movements relative to the seismic vessel will be closely monitored to ensure that the marine mammal does not approach within the safety radius. If the mammal appears likely to enter the safety radius, further mitigative actions will be taken, i.e., either further course alterations or shutdown of the airguns.
Airgun operations will be powered-down (or shut-down) immediately when cetaceans or pinnipeds are seen within or about to enter the appropriate safety radius, based on the water depth. If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety radius but is likely to enter the safety radius, and if the vessel's course and/or speed cannot be changed to avoid having the marine mammal enter the safety radius, the airguns will be powered-down before the mammal is within the safety radius. Likewise, if a mammal is already within the safety zone when first detected, the airguns will be powered-down immediately. If a marine mammal is seen within the appropriate safety radius of the array while the guns are powered-down, airgun operations will be shut-down. For the power-down procedure for the 20-gun array, one 80 in3 airgun will continue to be operated during the interruption of seismic survey. Airgun activity (after both power-down and shut-down procedures) will not resume until any marine mammal has cleared the safety radius. The mammal has cleared the safety radius if it is visually observed to have left the safety radius, or if it has not been seen within the zone for 15 min (small odontocetes, pinnipeds) or a minimum of 30 min (mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, beaked and bottlenose whales). These mitigation measures also apply in the case of sea turtles.
When airgun operations with the 20-gun array commence after a certain period (explained below) without airgun operations, the number of guns firing will be increased gradually, or “ramped up” (also described as a “soft start”). Operations will begin with the smallest gun in the array (80 in3) (0.0013 m3). Guns will be added in sequence such that the source level of the array will increase in steps not exceeding 6 dB per 5-min period over a total duration of approximately 25 minutes. Throughout the ramp-up procedure, the safety zone for the full 20-gun array will be monitored. Given the presence of the streamer and airgun array behind the vessel, the turning rate of the vessel with trailing streamer and array is no more than five degrees per minute, limiting the maneuverability of the vessel during operations, making the ramp-up and power-down procedures a necessary mitigation measure.
The “ramp-up” procedure will be required under the following circumstances. Under normal operational conditions (vessel speed 4 knots, or 7.4 km/hr), a ramp-up would be required after a power-down or shut-down period lasting about 8 minutes or longer if the
Ramp-up will not occur if the safety radius has not been visible for at least 30 minutes prior to the start of operations in either daylight or nighttime. If the safety radius has not been visible for that 30-minute period (e.g., during darkness or fog), ramp-up will not commence unless at least one airgun has been firing continuously during the interruption of seismic activity.
LDEO must have at least three visual observers and two passive acoustic monitors on board the vessels, and at least two must be experienced marine mammal observers that NMFS approves. In addition, there will be 2 to 3 observers on the
An observer must also be on watch part of the time, including the 30-minute periods preceding startup of the airguns and during ramp-ups. Use of multiple observers will increase the likelihood that marine mammals near the source vessel are detected. LDEO bridge personnel will also assist in detecting marine mammals and implementing mitigation requirements
The observers will watch for marine mammals and sea turtles from the highest practical vantage point on the vessel, which is either the bridge or the flying bridge. On the bridge of the
Observers will not be on duty during ongoing seismic operations at night; bridge personnel will watch for marine mammals during this time and will call for the airguns to be powered-down if marine mammals are observed in or about to enter the safety radii. If the airguns are ramped-up at night, two marine mammal observers will monitor for marine mammals for 30 minutes prior to ramp-up and during the ramp-up using night vision equipment that will be available (ITT F500 Series Generation 3 binocular image intensifier or equivalent). All observer activity will be assisted by the passive acoustic monitoring system where its use is feasible.
Additional personnel will be on land deploying the land instrumentation and will monitor the beaches in the vicinity. Some of the beaches in western Venezuela are not easily accessible, but the observers have agreed to monitor the beaches to the best of their abilities.
A report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the cruise. The end of the Caribbean cruise is predicted to occur on approximately May 28, 2004. The report will describe the operations that were conducted and the marine mammals that were detected. The report will be submitted to NMFS, providing full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring tasks. The 90-day report will summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities), and estimates of the amount and nature of potential take of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways.
All anticipated takes by harassment involve a temporary change in behavior. The mitigation measures to be applied will minimize the possibility of injurious takes. LDEO has calculated the “best estimates” for the numbers of animals that could be taken by level B harassment during the proposed seismic survey in the SE Caribbean Sea using data on marine mammal abundance from a previous survey region.
The “best” estimate of numbers of marine mammals that might be “taken” by disturbance during LDEO's proposed seismic survey with a 20-gun array in the SE Caribbean Sea is shown in the table below. Any marine mammal that is exposed to sound intensity >160 dB re 1 micro-pa is assumed to be “taken” due to possible changes in behavior. Not all marine mammals will change their behavior when exposed to these sound levels, particularly odontocetes, and some may alter their behavior when levels are lower. Also, the densities assumed in this table might be considerably higher or considerably lower at the time of the proposed activity than the densities recorded during past surveys.
Strong avoidance reactions by several species of mysticetes to seismic vessels have been observed at ranges up to 8 km (4.3 NM) and occasionally as far as 30 km (16.2 nm) from the source vessel. Some bowhead whales avoided waters within 30 km (16.2 nm) of the seismic operation. However, reactions at such long distances appear to be atypical of other species of mysticetes and, even for bowheads, may only apply during migration in Arctic waters.
Odontocetes reactions to seismic pulses, or at least those of dolphins, are expected to extend to lesser distances than are those of mysticetes. Odontocetes low-frequency hearing is less sensitive than that of mysticetes, and dolphins are often seen from seismic vessels. There are documented instances of dolphins approaching active seismic vessels. However, dolphins as well as some other types of odontocetes sometimes show avoidance responses and/or other changes in behavior when near operating seismic vessels.
Taking account of the mitigation measures that are planned, effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be limited to avoidance of the area around the seismic operation and short-term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of “Level B harassment.” In the cases of mysticetes, these reactions are expected to involve small numbers of individual cetaceans. The “best estimate” is that 8 humpback whales, which is slightly greater than 0 percent of the North and South Atlantic populations, will be exposed to sound levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 micro-pa (RMS). Achieved and Smultea (1995) provide evidence that the North and South Atlantic populations overlap in their wintering areas. Similarly, 59 sperm whales, or approximately 0.4 percent of the North Atlantic sperm whale population, would receive seismic sounds greater than or equal to 160 dB during the proposed survey in the SE Caribbean Sea.
The numbers of odontocetes that may be harassed by the proposed activities are small relative to their respective population sizes. A maximum of 2776, 2491, 1535, 972, and 633 common, bottlenose, Atlantic spotted, rough toothed, and pantropical spotted dolphins, respectively (the most abundant delphinids in the proposed survey area) are expected to be exposed to seismic sounds greater than or equal to 160 dB. This represents 2.1 to 5.0 percent of the North Atlantic populations of these species based on population estimates for these species. However, surveys have not been conducted for these species of dolphins for most of their range in the North Atlantic Ocean and adjacent waters. The true percentages of the populations that might be exposed to seismic sounds greater than or equal to 160 dB are much less than 2.1 to 5.0 percent. The population sizes and the 2.1 to 5.0 percent are based on a small fraction of their range and their actual population sizes are actually much larger. In light of all of these factors, the potential takings by Level B harassment are expected to have no more than a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.
NMFS has determined that the impact of conducting the seismic survey in the Southeast Caribbean Sea and adjacent Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Venezuela, will result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior by certain species of marine mammals. This activity is expected to result in no more than a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.
While the numbers of potential incidental harassment takes depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the vicinity of the survey activity, the numbers are estimated to be small. In addition, no take by injury and/or death is anticipated, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is low and will be avoided through the incorporation of the mitigation measures mentioned in this document. In addition, the proposed seismic program is not expected to interfere with any subsistence hunts, since operations in the whaling and sealing areas either do not occur or are limited in nature and scope.
Under section 7 of the ESA, NMFS has completed a biological opinion on the effects of the seismic survey on ESA-listed species and critical habitat. NMFS concluded that these activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these species.
On September 11, 2003, the NSF made a determination, based on information contained within its EA that implementation of the subject action is not a major Federal action having significant effects on the environment within the meaning of Executive Order 12114. NSF determined, therefore, that an environmental impact statement would not be prepared. On October 21, 2003 (68 FR 60086), NMFS noted that the NSF had prepared an EA for the SE Caribbean surveys and that this EA was available upon request. In accordance with NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 (Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, May 20, 1999), NMFS has reviewed the information contained in NSF's EA and determined that the NSF EA accurately and completely describes the proposed action alternative, reasonable additional alternatives, and the potential impacts on marine mammals, endangered species, and other marine life that could be impacted by the preferred alternative and the other alternatives. Therefore, based on this review and analysis, NMFS is adopting the NSF EA under 40 CFR 1506.3 in addition to the supplemental EA, and has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The FONSI also takes into consideration additional mitigation measures in the IHA that are not in NSF's EA. A copy of the NSF EA and the NMFS FONSI for this activity are available upon request (see
NMFS has issued an IHA to take small numbers of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting a seismic surveys in the Southeast Caribbean Sea and adjacent Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Venezuela to LDEO for a 1-year period, provided the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are undertaken.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Coastal
The CPSAS will meet Wednesday, May 19, 2004, from 9 a.m. until business for the day is completed.
The meeting will be held at NMFS, Southwest Region, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Conference Room 3400, Long Beach, CA 90802; telephone: (562) 980-4000.
Dan Waldeck, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (503) 820-2280.
The primary purpose of the work session is to review information developed by the CPS Management Team about the current Pacific mackerel stock assessment and harvest guideline and seasonal structure recommendations for the 2004-05 fishery. Planning for the CPS stock assessment review and election of CPSAS officers for 2004 will also occur. CPSAS considerations about the need for an amendment to the CPS fishery management plan to address management measures related to Pacific sardine allocation will also be discussed. The CPSAS will develop recommendations for presentation to the Council at the June 2004 Council meeting.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the CPSAS for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the CPSAS's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 820-2280 at least five days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and Biological Sub-Committee in Charleston, SC. See
The meeting will take place on May 17-19, 2004. The SSC Biological Assessment Sub-Committee will meet from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. on May 17, 2004, and from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. on May 18,2004. The full SSC will meet from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. on May 19, 2004.
The meetings will be held at the Town & Country Inn, 2008 Savannah Highway, Charleston, SC 29407; 843/571-1000; FAX 843/766-9444.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer; telephone: 843/571-4366 or toll free 866/SAFMC-10; FAX 843/769-4520; email: kim.iverson@safmc.net.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the SSC is the body responsible for reviewing the Council's scientific materials, including stock assessments. Therefore, the purpose of the SSC Biological Assessment Sub-Committee meeting is to prepare recommendations for presentation to the full Scientific and Statistical Committee addressing recent SEDAR (Southeast Data, Assessment and Review) stock assessments for yellowtail snapper, goliath grouper, hogfish and king mackerel. The SSC Sub-Committee and SSC will provide their determinations on the stock assessments, including the following: certify the assessments are based upon best available data/science and are adequate for management, develop advice on the magnitude and direction of action(s) required, interpret the assessment results and provide clearly understood conclusions, develop guidelines for the Council on assessment needs and resources to complete recommendations, and review the current Southeastern Data Assessment and Review (SEDAR) Process and offer recommendations.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Issuance of permit amendments.
Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have been issued amendments to their existing scientific research permits to study marine mammals:
Permit No. 42-1642-02: Mystic Aquarium, 55 Coogan Blvd., Mystic, CT 06355 (Dr. Lisa Mazarro, Principal Investigator);
Permit No. 482-1653-01: James Gilbert, Ph.D., University of Maine, Department of Wildlife Ecology, 210 Nutting Hall, Orono, Maine 04469; and
Permit No. 1026-1671-00: Belinda L. Rubinstein, New England Aquarium, Central Wharf, Boston, MA 02110.
The amendments and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)713-0376; and
Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9200; fax (978)281-9371.
Amy Sloan or Ruth Johnson, (301)713-2289.
On February 24, 2004, notice was published in the
Permit No. 42-1642-02, as amended, authorizes the permit holder (Mystic Aquarium) to collect, receive, import, and export blood, milk, and other soft parts from all non-listed and certain listed marine mammals under NMFS jurisdiction in order to: (1) Study metabolic clearance rates of vitamins A and E in captive Steller sea lions (
Permit No. 482-1653-01, as amended, authorizes the permit holder (James Gilbert) to capture, mark, sex, measure, blood sample, radio tag, VHF tag, biopsy, monitor heart rate, determine blood volume, and monitor via aerial survey harbor seals (
Permit No. 1026-1671-00, as amended, authorizes the permit holder (Belinda Rubinstein) to capture, tag, sample (including tooth extraction, blubber biopsy, sample lesions, blood and milk collection, oral and anal swabs, urine and feces), take rectal temperatures and use a pulse oxymeter to monitor animals' conditions during procedures, ultrasound for blubber thickness measurements, and release solitary animals of five pinniped species including harbor seal, harp seal (
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of public field hearing.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC or Commission”) will conduct a public field hearing in Tampa, Florida, on Monday, June 21, 2004 to obtain information and views from the public concerning swimming pool safety. The hearing will focus on drownings of children under 5 years old in residential swimming pools and spas, as well as entrapments and entanglements in suction outlets in swimming pools and spas. The hearing will address the following general questions: What has worked to prevent swimming pool drownings of young children—and why? What has not worked to prevent these drownings—and why? What can CPSC do to reduce drownings of young children in residential swimming pools? What strategies are most effective in addressing suction entrapment and entanglement incidents? What can CPSC do to prevent these incidents?
The Commission requests members of the public to participate in this hearing. The Commission is particularly interested in participation from city/county/state code officials, injury prevention specialists, industry representatives, fire department/EMS officials, medical personnel, legislative officials, and parents/caregivers of children who were victims of drowning or near-drowning.
The hearing will be held on Monday, June 21, 2004, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. The Commission will recess for lunch around 12 noon. Requests to make an oral presentation, and 10 copies of the text of the presentation, must be received by the Office of the Secretary no later than June 7, 2004. Persons making presentations at the meeting should provide an additional 10 copies for dissemination on the date of the meeting. In addition, requests for audiovisual equipment (
The meeting will be held at the University of South Florida College of Public Health, 13201 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., Tampa, Florida 33612-3805. Requests to make oral presentations, and texts of oral presentations should be captioned “Swimming Pool Hearing” and mailed to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207, or delivered to that office: Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. Requests and texts of oral presentations also may be submitted by facsimile to (301) 504-0127 or by e-mail to
For information about the purpose or subject matter of this meeting, contact Deborah Tinsworth, Project Manager, Directorate for Epidemiology, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207; telephone: (301) 504-7307; e-mail:
Swimming pools can be dangerous to young children. In 1999 and 2000, an average of about 250 children under 5 years old drowned in swimming pools each year. In 2002, approximately 1,600 children under 5 years old were treated in U.S. hospital emergency rooms for near-drowning injuries related to swimming pools. About 58 percent of these children were hospitalized. Approximately 67 percent of the near-drowning injuries were reported to have occurred in home settings. Societal costs associated with these drownings and near-drownings are almost $2 billion each year. In addition, these tragedies result in severe emotional impacts on the families of the victims. From 1990 through October 2003, CPSC has reports of 126 suction entrapment incidents, including 25 deaths. These incidents occurred in both swimming pools and spas.
CPSC has been actively involved for many years in injury prevention activities addressing swimming pool safety. In the late 1980s, CPSC conducted an extensive study of submersion incidents involving children under age 5 in residential swimming pools in eight counties in California, Arizona, and Florida. The results of this study indicated that most of the victims were boys between 1 and 3 years old. Nearly half of the victims were last seen in the house before being found in the pool. In addition, 23 percent of the victims were last seen on the porch or patio or in the yard. This means that fully 69 percent of the children who became victims were not expected to be in or at the pool, but were found in the water. Sixty-five percent of the incidents occurred in a pool owned by the victims's immediate family, and 33 percent occurred in pools owned by relatives or friends. Fewer than 2 percent of the incidents were the result of children trespassing on property where they did not belong. Seventy-seven percent of the victims had been missing for 5 minutes or less when they were found.
The speed with which swimming pool drownings and submersions can occur is a special concern. Toddlers are inquisitive and impulsive and lack a sense of danger. In addition, the incidents are silent; it is unlikely that splashing or screaming will occur to alert a parent or caregiver that a child is in trouble.
From this information as well as information on child development and behavior, CPSC staff concluded that the best way to reduce child drownings in residential pools is for pool owners to construct and maintain barriers that prevent young children from gaining access to pools. CPSC staff believes that barriers help overcome the short lapses in supervision that are often associated with submersion incidents. In 1994, CPSC published Safety Barrier Guidelines for Home Pools (available on CPSC's Web site at
In 1998, CPSC published Guidelines for Entrapment Hazards: Making Pools and Spas Safer (available at
In 2003, CPSC set a new strategic goal to reduce the rate of swimming pool and other at-home drownings of children under 5 years old by 10 percent from the 1999-2000 annual average by the year 2013. The information that we gather at this public hearing will help CPSC develop plans for further work in the area of swimming pool safety.
The purpose of the public hearing is to provide a forum for oral presentations concerning swimming pool safety, specifically drownings of children under 5 years old in residential swimming pools and suction entrapment and entanglement deaths and injuries. The Commission intends to hold another public field hearing on swimming pool safety in Phoenix, Arizona on Tuesday, July 23, 2004.
The Commission requests comments from interested stakeholders and citizens on the following specific areas of interest:
1. Data on drowning and near-drowning in residential swimming pools and spas.
• In your locale, how many child drowning and near-drowning incidents do you see on an annual basis? How many suction entrapments and entanglements?
• What were the circumstances involved in these incidents?
• What trends in drowning and entrapment incidents have you seen in recent years?
• Have you seen any correlation between drowning intervention activities (for example, new barrier requirements, safety campaigns,
• Are there ways in which the incident reporting process could be improved?
• In general, is the available incident information adequate for a thorough and accurate evaluation of the hazard scenarios involved?
• What data needs still exist?
2. Regional/local pool barrier codes, laws, and regulations.
• What law or guideline has been adopted in your region/locale?
• What does is require?
• When was it enacted?
• What was the source building code?
• Which agency has jurisdiction?
• What enforcement exists?
3. Effectiveness of pool barriers and other protective products.
• What evidence can you provide to demonstrate the effectiveness of protective products such as pool fencing, pool and/or door alarms, pool covers, etc?
• Which protective products do you think are the most effective?
• What factors do you think contribute to consumers using or not using these products?
• What research, if any, do you think needs to be done in this area?
4. Educational approaches.
• In your locale, what public information approaches have been used to address pool drowning hazards?
• To whom were these approaches targeted?
• What tasks were involved in carrying out these efforts?
• Which approaches worked, and which did not?
• What dollar resources were involved?
5. Role for CPSC.
• What role should CPSC take to help address child drownings and entrapment and entanglement injuries?
Participation in the hearing is open.
Department of Education.
The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 3, 2004.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Alice Thaler, Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or faxed to (202) 395-6974.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested,
Responses: 4,120.
Burden Hours: 14,041.
Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Katrina Ingalls at her e-mail address
Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
Notice of filings.
The owners/operators of thirteen baseload electric powerplants have submitted coal capability self-certifications pursuant to section 201 of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA) and Department of Energy (DOE) regulations in 10 CFR 501.60.61.
Copies of self-certification filings are available for public inspection, upon request, in the Office of Coal & Power Import/Export, Fossil Energy, Room 4G-039, FE-27, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Ellen Russell at (202) 586-9624.
Title II of FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of availability; opening of public comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the availability of, and soliciting public comments for 30 days on, Department of Energy (DOE) documents applicable to characterization by the Central Characterization Project (CCP) of transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) proposed for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The documents are available for review in the public dockets listed in
EPA is requesting public comment on the documents. Comments must be received by EPA's official Air Docket on or before June 3, 2004.
Comments may be submitted by mail to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0052. Comments may also be submitted electronically, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I.B of the
Ed Feltcorn, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, (202) 343-9463. You can also call EPA's toll-free WIPP Information Line, 1-800-331-WIPP or visit our Web site at
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
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. However, late comments may be considered if time permits.
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternatives.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
DOE is developing the WIPP near Carlsbad in southeastern New Mexico as a deep geologic repository for disposal of TRU radioactive waste. As defined by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-579), as amended (Pub. L. 104-201), TRU waste consists of materials containing elements having atomic numbers greater than 92 (with half-lives greater than twenty years), in concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries of alpha-emitting TRU isotopes per gram of waste. Much of the existing TRU waste consists of items contaminated during the production of nuclear weapons, such as rags, equipment, tools, and sludges.
On May 13, 1998, EPA announced its final compliance certification decision to the Secretary of Energy (published May 18, 1998, 63 FR 27354). This decision stated that the WIPP will comply with EPA's radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 191, subparts B and C.
The final WIPP certification decision includes conditions that (1) prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP from any site other than the Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL)
EPA will perform an inspection of the TRU waste characterization activities performed by the DOE's Central Characterization Project (CCP) staff at LANL in accordance with Condition 3 of the WIPP certification. The CCP is a mobile characterization facility that DOE is developing to assist TRU waste generator sites with complex waste characterization activities. We will evaluate the adequacy, implementation, and effectiveness of the CCP technical activities contracted by LANL for characterization of the disposal of newly-generated and retrievably-stored solid and debris waste at the WIPP. The overall program adequacy and effectiveness of CCP/LANL documents will be based on the following DOE-provided documents: (1) CCP-PO-001—Revision 8, 3/15/04—CCP Transuranic Waste Characterization Quality Assurance Project Plan and (2) CCP-PO-002—Revision 9, 3/15/04—CCP Transuranic Waste Certification Plan. EPA has placed these DOE documents pertinent to the CCP/LANL inspection in the public docket described in
EPA will inspect the following technical elements for characterizing newly-generated and retrievably-stored TRU solid and debris waste: data validation and verification, acceptable knowledge (AK), nondestructive assay (HENC/Gamma and P-TGS/FRAM), Digital Radiography/Computed Tomography, visual examination (VE), and data tracking and reporting via the WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS).
If EPA determines as a result of the inspection that the proposed CCP waste characterization processes and programs used at LANL adequately control the characterization of transuranic waste, we will notify DOE by letter and place the letter in the official Air Docket in Washington, DC, as well as in the informational docket locations in New Mexico. A letter of approval will allow DOE to dispose of transuranic waste from LANL (via the CCP) at WIPP. The EPA will not make a determination of compliance prior to the inspection or before the 30-day comment period has closed.
Information on the certification decision is filed in the official EPA Air Docket, Docket No. A-93-02 and is available for review in Washington, DC, and at three EPA WIPP informational docket locations in New Mexico. The dockets in New Mexico contain only major items from the official Air Docket in Washington, DC, plus those documents added to the official Air Docket since the October 1992 enactment of the WIPP LWA.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of availability of grants for implementation of coastal recreation water monitoring and public notification under the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act.
The Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act, signed into law on October 10, 2000, amended the Clean Water Act (CWA), to incorporate provisions to reduce the risk of illness to users of the Nation's recreational waters. Section 406(b) of the CWA, as amended by the BEACH Act, authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to award program development and implementation grants to eligible States, territories, tribes, and local governments to support microbiological testing and monitoring of coastal recreation waters, including the Great Lakes, that are adjacent to beaches or similar points of access used by the public. BEACH Act grants also support development and implementation of programs to notify the public of the potential exposure to disease-causing microorganisms in coastal recreation waters. EPA encourages coastal States and territories to apply for BEACH Act grants for program implementation (referred to as implementation grants) to implement effective and comprehensive coastal recreation water monitoring and public notification programs. EPA also encourages coastal tribes to apply for BEACH Act grants for program development (referred to as development grants) to develop effective and comprehensive coastal recreation water monitoring and public notification programs.
States and territories must submit applications on or before September 1, 2004. Eligible tribes should notify the relevant Regional BEACH Act grant coordinator of their interest in applying on or before August 2, 2004. Upon receipt of a tribe's notice of interest, EPA will establish an appropriate application deadline.
You must send your application to the appropriate Regional Grant Coordinator listed in this notice under
Beth LeaMond, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., (4305T), Washington, DC 20460, 202-566-0444,
The general statutory authority for BEACH Act grants is CWA section 406(b) as amended by the BEACH Act, Public Law 106-284, 114 Stat. 970 (2000). It provides: “The Administrator may make grants to States and local governments to develop and implement programs for monitoring and notification for coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public.” CWA section 406(b)(2)(A), however,
In fiscal year 2004, EPA intends to award grants authorized under CWA section 406(b) to eligible States and territories to support the implementation of coastal recreation water monitoring and public notification programs that are consistent with EPA's required performance criteria for grants. Also in fiscal year 2004, EPA intends to award development grants to eligible tribes to support the development of coastal recreation water monitoring and public notification programs that are consistent with EPA's performance criteria for grants. EPA published the required performance criteria for grants in National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants (EPA-823-B-02-004), on July 19, 2002. A notice of availability of the document was published in the
Coastal and Great Lake States that meet the requirements of CWA section 406(b)(2)(A) are eligible for grants in fiscal year 2004 to implement monitoring and notification programs. The term “State” is defined in CWA section 502 to include the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust territory of the Pacific Islands. However, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands no longer exists. The Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau, which were previously entities within the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, have entered into Compacts of Free Association with the Government of the United States. As a result, each is now a sovereign, self-governing entity and, as such, is no longer eligible to receive grants as a territory or possession of the United States.
CWA section 406(b)(2)(B) authorizes EPA to make a grant to a local government for implementation of a monitoring and notification program only if, after the one-year period beginning on the date of publication of the performance criteria (July 19, 2002), EPA determines that the State within which the local government has jurisdiction is not implementing a program that meets the requirements of CWA section 406(b), which includes a requirement that the program is consistent with the performance criteria in National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Therefore, July 19, 2003, was the earliest date that local governments would have been eligible for implementation grants. EPA has not determined that any State is implementing the program inconsistent with the requirements in section 406(b). Local governments may contact their EPA Regional office for further information about BEACH Act grants.
Section 518(e) of the CWA authorizes EPA to treat eligible Indian tribes in the same manner as States for the purpose of receiving CWA section 406 grant funding. For fiscal year 2004, EPA will make $50,000 available for development grants to eligible tribes. In order to be eligible for a CWA section 406 development grant, a tribe must have coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public. The phrase “coastal recreation waters” is defined in CWA section 502(21) to mean the Great Lakes and marine coastal waters (including coastal estuaries) that are designated under CWA section 303(c) for use for swimming, bathing, surfing, or similar water contact activities. The statute explicitly excludes from the definition inland waters and waters upstream of the mouth of a river or stream having an unimpaired natural connection with the open sea. In addition, a tribe must meet the requirements in CWA section 518 for treatment in a manner similar to a State for purposes of receiving a CWA section 406 grant. EPA encourages those tribes with coastal recreation waters to contact their regional Beach Act grant coordinator for further information regarding the application process as soon as possible.
Yes, there are additional eligibility requirements and grant conditions. First, CWA section 406(b)(2)(A) provides that EPA may only award a grant to implement a monitoring and notification program if:
(i) The program is consistent with the performance criteria published by the Administrator under CWA section 406(a);
(ii) The State or local government prioritizes the use of grant funds for particular coastal recreation waters based on the use of the water and the risk to human health presented by pathogens or pathogen indicators;
(iii) The State or local government makes available to the Administrator the factors used to prioritize the use of funds under clause (ii);
(iv) The State or local government provides a list of discrete areas of coastal recreation waters that are subject to the program for monitoring and notification for which the grant is provided that specifies any coastal recreation waters for which fiscal constraints will prevent consistency with the performance criteria under CWA section 406(a); and
(v) The public is provided an opportunity to review the program through a process that provides for public notice and an opportunity for comment.
Second, CWA section 406(c) requires that as a condition of receipt of a CWA section 406 grant, a State or local government program for monitoring and notification must identify:
(1) Lists of coastal recreation waters in the State, including coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public;
(2) In the case of a State program for monitoring and notification, the process by which the State may delegate to local governments responsibility for implementing the monitoring and notification program;
(3) The frequency and location of monitoring and assessment of coastal recreation waters based on—
(A) The periods of recreational use of the waters;
(B) The nature and extent of use during certain periods;
(C) The proximity of the waters to known point sources and nonpoint sources of pollution; and
(D) Any effect of storm events on the waters;
(4) (A) The methods to be used for detecting levels of pathogens and pathogen indicators that are harmful to human health; and
(B) The assessment procedures for identifying short-term increases in pathogens and pathogen indicators that are harmful to human health in coastal recreation waters (including increases in relation to storm events);
(5) Measures for prompt communication of the occurrence, nature, location, pollutants involved, and extent of any exceeding of, or likelihood of exceeding, applicable water quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators to—
(A) The Administrator, in such form as the Administrator determines to be appropriate; and
(B) A designated official of a local government having jurisdiction over land adjoining the coastal recreation waters for which the failure to meet applicable standards is identified;
(6) Measures for the posting of signs at beaches or similar points of access, or functionally equivalent communication measures that are sufficient to give notice to the public that the coastal recreation waters are not meeting or are not expected to meet applicable water quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators; and
(7) Measures that inform the public of the potential risks associated with water contact activities in the coastal recreation waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards.
Third, as required by CWA section 406(b)(3)(A), a State recipient of a CWA section 406 grant must submit to EPA, in such format and at such intervals as EPA determines to be appropriate, a report that describes:
(1) Data collected as part of the program for monitoring and notification as described in section 406(c), and
(2) Actions taken to notify the public when water quality standards are exceeded.
In the
Fourth, as required in the
(1) The extent of beaches and similar points of public access adjacent to coastal recreation waters, and
(2) The extent of beaches that are monitored. (68 FR 15446, 15447).
Those States that have not complied with the latitude/longitude and mileage data submission requirement must submit to EPA, as part of the grant application package, a plan outlining how this data submission requirement will be met in the 2004 grant year. For purposes of this requirement, the grant year is the 365-day period beginning on the date of the grant award.
For fiscal year 2004, the total available for BEACH Act grants is $9.941 million. EPA expects to award $9.891 million in implementation and development grants to eligible States and territories. In addition, EPA intends to award $50,000 in development grants to eligible tribes.
EPA expects to award grants to all eligible States and territories who apply for funding based on an allocation formula that the Agency developed for allocating BEACH Act grant funds in 2002. EPA consulted with various States, the Coastal States Organization, and the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) to develop this formula. It uses three factors that are readily available and verifiable: (1) Beach season length, (2) beach miles, and (3) beach use.
EPA selected beach season length as a factor because it determines the part of the year when a government would conduct its monitoring program. The longer the beach season, the more resources a government would need to conduct monitoring. The Agency obtained the information on the length of a beach season from the National Health Protection Survey of Beaches for the States or territories that submitted a completed survey. EPA estimated the beach season length for American Samoa, Oregon, Puerto Rico, and Northern Mariana Islands based on the season reported by nearby States and Territories. EPA estimated the beach season length for Alaska based on air and water temperature, available information on recreation activities, and data from the 1993 National Water Based Recreation Survey. EPA grouped the States and U.S. Territories into four categories of beach season lengths:
EPA selected miles of beach as a factor because it determines the geographical extent over which a government would conduct monitoring. The more miles of beaches, the more resources a government would need to conduct monitoring. EPA does not have complete and verified beach mileage data at this time. Therefore, in the interim, EPA is using shoreline miles as a surrogate for beach miles in the allocation formula. Shoreline miles data overestimates beach miles in some States and territories; however, EPA and States agreed that this is the best beach estimate available at this time. EPA used the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) publication, The Coastline of the United States, to quantify shoreline miles. In future years, EPA intends to use beach miles (reported by States and territories) rather than shoreline miles. EPA will also use beach miles information to periodically update the CWA section 406(g) list (also known as the National List of Beaches—document number, EPA-823-R-04-004).
EPA selected beach use as a factor because it reflects the importance of beach-related tourism to the local economy. Greater use of beaches makes it more likely that a government would need to conduct monitoring more frequently due to the larger number of
The grants allocation formula sums three parts. The first part is a base amount for all States and Territories that varies with the length of the beach season. The second part distributes 50% of the total remaining funds based on the ratio of shoreline miles in a State or territory to the total length of shoreline miles. For example, if a State has 4% of the total coastal and Great Lakes shoreline, that State would receive 4% of 50% or 2% of total funds remaining after the Agency distributed the funds for part one. The third part distributes the remaining 50% based on the ratio of coastal population in a State or territory to the total coastal population. For example, if a State has 2% of the total coastal and Great Lakes population, that State would receive 2% of 50% or 1% of the total funds remaining after the Agency distributes the funds for first two parts. The following table summarizes the allocation formula:
For 2004, the total available for BEACH Act grants to States and territories is $9.891 million. Assuming all 35 States and territories with coastal recreation waters apply and meet the statutory eligibility requirements for implementation grants (and have met the statutory grant conditions applicable to previously awarded section 406 grants), the distribution of the funds for year 2004 would be:
EPA expects that all 35 States and territories will apply. If fewer than 35 States and territories apply for the allocated amount, or if any applicant fails to meet the statutory eligibility requirements (or the statutory conditions applicable to previously awarded section 406 grants), then EPA will redistribute available grant funds to eligible States and territories in the following order:
(1) States that meet the eligibility requirements for implementation grants and that have met the statutory conditions applicable to previously awarded section 406 grants will receive the full amount of funds based on the allocation formula.
(2) States that have not met the requirements for implementation grants but have met the statutory requirements and grant conditions applicable to previously awarded section 406 grants may receive grants for continued program development. Any program development grants that the Agency awards will be for the limited purpose of completing work needed to qualify for implementation grants. Therefore, we expect that funding levels for continued program development grants will be lower than the amount allocated for program implementation grants.
(3) EPA may award program implementation grants to local governments in States that the Agency determines have not met the requirements for implementation grants.
(4) Should there be any remaining funds, EPA may award these funds to those States that have met the statutory requirements for implementation grants, as well as the statutory grant conditions of previous section 406 grants, using the criteria in the allocation formula.
EPA expects to apportion the funds set aside for tribal grants evenly among all eligible tribes that apply for funding.
The expected funding and project period for implementation grants awarded in fiscal year 2004 is one year.
Recipients do not have to provide matching funds for these Implementation Grants. EPA may establish a match requirement in the future based on a review of State program activity and funding levels.
If a State, tribe, or territory cannot use all of its allocation, the Regional Administrator may award the unused funds to any eligible coastal or Great Lake grant recipient in the Region for the continued development or implementation of their coastal recreation water monitoring and notification program(s). If, after re-allocations, there are still unused funds within the Region, EPA Headquarters will redistribute these funds to any eligible coastal or Great Lake grant recipient.
Recipients of implementation grants may use funds for activities to support implementing a beach monitoring and notification program that is consistent with the required performance criteria for grants specified in the document, National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants,
EPA Regional offices will award CWA section 406 grants through a non-competitive process. EPA expects to award grants to all eligible State, tribe, and territory applicants that meet the applicable requirements described in this notice.
The Administrator has delegated the authority to award BEACH Act grants to the Regional Administrators.
The number assigned to the BEACH Act Grants is 66.472, Program Code CU.
For fiscal year 2004, BEACH Act Grants cannot be included in a Performance Partnership Grant.
Your application package should contain completed:
• EPA SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance;
• Program Summary;
• Data Submission Plan; and
• For those States that have not complied with the latitude/longitude and mileage data submission requirement, your application package must also contain a plan that describes how the State will meet the latitude/longitude and mileage data submission requirement by the end of the 2004 grant year.
In order for EPA to determine that a State or local government is eligible for an implementation grant, the applicant must submit documentation with its application to demonstrate that its program is consistent with the performance criteria. The Program Summary must contain sufficient technical detail for EPA to confirm that your program meets the statutory eligibility requirements and statutory grant conditions for previously awarded CWA section 406 grants listed in section II (Funding and Eligibility) of this notice. The Program Summary must also describe how the State used BEACH Act Grant funds to develop the beach monitoring and notification program, and how the program has met the nine performance criteria in
The Data Submission Plan describes the State data infrastructure and how the State plans to submit beach monitoring and notification data to EPA. For those States who have already submitted their Data Submission Plan, updates and amendments to the Plan may be submitted. More information on both the Program Summary and Data Submission Plan is available at
States and territories must submit application packages to the appropriate EPA Regional Office by September 1, 2004. EPA will make an award after the Agency reviews the documentation and confirms that the program meets the applicable requirements. The Office of Management and Budget has authorized EPA to collect this information (BEACH Act Grant Information Collection Request, OMB control number 2040-0244). Please contact the appropriate EPA Regional Office for a complete application package.
The notice of intent should include the tribe's name and the name and telephone number of a contact person.
Yes. Three specific QA/QC requirements must be met to comply with EPA's performance criteria for grants:
(1) Applicants must submit documentation that describes the quality system implemented by the State, tribe, or local government. Documentation may be in the form of a Quality Management Plan or equivalent documentation.
(2) Applicants must submit a quality assurance project plan (QAPP) or equivalent documentation.
(3) Applicants are responsible for submitting documentation of the quality system and QAPP for review and approval by the EPA Quality Assurance Officer or his designee before they take primary or secondary environmental measurements. More information about the required QA/QC procedures is available in Chapter Four and Appendix H of
Recipients must submit annual performance reports and financial reports as required in 40 CFR 31.40 and 31.41. The annual performance report explains changes to the beach monitoring and notification program during the grant year. It also describes how the grant funds were used to implement the program to meet the performance criteria listed in
The regulations at 40 CFR part 31 govern the award and administration of grants to States, tribes, local governments, and territories under CWA sections 406(b). Allowable costs will be determined according to the cost principles outlined in OMB Cost Circular A-87.
Beth LeaMond USEPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,—4305, Washington DC 20460; T: 202-566-0399; F: 202-566-0409;
Matt Liebman USEPA Region I, One Congress St. Ste. 1100—CWQ, Boston, MA 02114-2023; T: 617-918-1626; F: 617-918-1505;
Helen Grebe USEPA Region II, 2890 Woodbridge Ave., MS220, Edison, NJ 08837-3679; T: 732-321-6797; F: 732-321-6616;
Nancy Grundahl USEPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street 3ES10, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029; T: 215-814-2729; F: 215-814-2782;
Joel Hansel USEPA Region IV, 61 Forsyth St. 15th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303-3415; T: 404-562-9274; F: 404-562-9224;
Holly Wirick USEPA Region V, 77 West Jackson Blvd. WT-16J, Chicago, IL 60604-3507; T: 312-353-6704; F: 312-886-0168;
Mike Schaub USEPA Region VI, 1445 Ross Ave. 6WQ-EW, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; T: 214-665-7314; F: 214-665-6689;
Terry Fleming USEPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St. WTR-2, San Francisco, CA 94105; T: 415-972-3462; F: 415-947-3537;
Rob Pedersen USEPA Region X, 120 Sixth Ave. OW-134, Seattle, WA 98101; T: 206-553-1646; F: 206-553-0165;
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Availability of National List of Beaches under the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act.
This notice informs the public of the National List of Beaches pursuant to section 406(g) of the Clean Water Act as amended by the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act. Section 406(g) requires EPA to publish a list of discrete coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public. EPA is publishing this list under the title National List of Beaches. The list contains information the States made available to EPA as of December 31, 2003. The National List of Beaches provides a national baseline of the extent of monitoring of waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access, which will allow EPA to measure state program performance in implementing the monitoring and notification provisions of the BEACH Act.
Address all inquiries concerning this document to Beth LeaMond, Environmental Scientist, Office of Science and Technology, Mail Code 4305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Beth LeaMond, (202) 566-0444,
This notice may be of interest to State and local beach managers, the general public, and environmental organizations concerned with public health at beaches.
The BEACH Act, signed into law on October 10, 2000, incorporated new provisions in the Clean Water Act to reduce the risk of illness to users of the nation's coastal recreation waters. Section 406(g) of the Clean Water Act, as amended by the BEACH Act, Pub. L. 106-284, 114 Stat. 970 (2000), states:
“(g) LIST OF WATERS.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—Beginning not later than 18 months after the date of publication of performance criteria under subsection (a), based on information made available to the Administrator, the Administrator shall identify, and maintain a list of, discrete coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public that—
“(A) specifies any waters described in this paragraph that are subject to a monitoring and notification program consistent with the performance criteria established under subsection (a); and
“(B) specifies any waters described in this paragraph for which there is no monitoring and notification program (including waters for which fiscal constraints will prevent the State or the Administrator from performing monitoring and notification consistent with the performance criteria established under subsection (a)).
“(2) AVAILABILITY.—The Administrator shall make the list described in paragraph (1) available to the public through—
“(A) publication in the
“(B) electronic media.
“(3) UPDATES.—The Administrator shall update the list described in paragraph (1) periodically as new information becomes available.”
EPA provided Federal grant funds to assist States in the development and implementation of their beach monitoring and notification programs. As part of this effort, States were to develop their State-specific lists that identify the coastal recreation waters, including those waters adjacent to beaches and other similar points of access, and identify whether there is a monitoring program for each beach. EPA assisted States through workshops and telephone contact with Regional Beach Coordinators and Headquarters personnel. States then submitted their lists to EPA. EPA compiled the submissions into the National List of Beaches and is now making the information available to the public, pursuant to section 406(g) of the CWA.
The
The National List of Beaches is available on EPA's Web site at:
The 35 States subject to the BEACH Act amendments to the Clean Water Act provided the information that EPA used to compile the National List of Beaches. State contacts are identified along with each State's list.
EPA intends to update this list periodically, no sooner than one year from date of today's
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of tentative approval.
Notice is hereby given that the State of Arkansas is revising its approved Public Water System Supervision Program. Arkansas has adopted the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule to improve control of microbial pathogens in drinking water, including specifically the protozoan Cryptosporidium at public water systems that serve 10,000 people or less. EPA has determined that these revisions are no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulations. Therefore, EPA intends to approve these program revisions.
All interested parties may request a public hearing. A request for a public hearing must be submitted by June 3, 2004 to the Regional Administrator at the EPA Region 6 address shown below. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the Regional Administrator. However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made by June 3, 2004, a public hearing will be held. If no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, this determination shall become final and effective on June 3, 2004. Any request for a public hearing shall include the following information: The name, address, and telephone number of the individual, organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determination and a brief statement of the information that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; and the signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.
All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following offices: Arkansas Department of Health, Division of Engineering—Slot #37, 4815 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 and United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Drinking Water Section (6WQ-SD), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202.
José G. Rodriguez, EPA Region 6, Drinking Water Section at the Dallas address given above or at telephone (214) 665-8087.
(Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (1996), and 40 CFR Part 142 of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations)
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a workshop sponsored by the National Science and Technology Council/Committee on Science/Interagency Working Group on the Physics of the Universe to discuss the emerging field of High Energy Density Physics.
The Interagency Working Group will hold one three-day workshop on Monday, May 24, 2004, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (EDT); Tuesday, May 25, 2004, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and Wednesday, May 26, 2004, 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. All sessions of the workshop will be held at the Marriott Gaithersburg Washingtonian Center, 9751 Washingtonian Boulevard, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878, USA.
For information regarding this Notice, please contact Michael Holland, Office of Science and Technology Policy. Telephone: (202) 456-6069. Email:
The workshop is being held to solicit input to the Interagency Working Group (IWG) on the Physics of the Universe about scientific opportunities in the emerging area of High Energy Density Physics (HEDP). This topic was featured in a recent National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) report,
• Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos: Eleven Science Questions for the New Century, National Research Council, 2003;
• Frontiers in High Energy Density Physics: The X-Games of Contemporary Science, National Research Council, 2003 (both are available through
• The Science and Applications of Ultrafast, Ultraintense Lasers: Opportunities in Science and Technology Using the Brightest Light
The IWG will then use the workshop summary to develop proposed near-term scientific goals and milestones for the field along with proposed recommendations for a set of phased priorities. The IWG will then announce its list of scientific goals, milestones and phased priorities for public comment in a subsequent
Federal scientists and agency representatives are encouraged to participate in workshop discussions. Both federal and non-federal employees may make presentations at the workshop. Members of the discussants group may serve as discussion mediators and facilitators in general and breakout sessions. Professor Davidson, the workshop's chairman, will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule.
• Introductory statements and presentation of workshop charge by Federal Program representatives.
• Presentations framing opportunities for discovery in the following scientific areas:
◦ A—HEDP in Astrophysical Systems.
◦ B—Beam-Induced HEDP (RHIC, heavy ion fusion, high-intensity accelerators, etc.).
◦ S—HEDP in Stockpile Stewardship Facilities (Omega, Z, National Ignition Facility, etc.).
◦ U—Ultrafast, Ultraintense Laser Science.
• Public Comments (10-minute rule).
• Break-out sessions: Discussions of issues and scientific opportunities in each of the four areas (A, B, S, and U).
• Public comments (10-minute rule).
• Reports from the Break-Out Sessions: Summary and discussion by the rapporteur of the comments and issues identified in each breakout area (A, B, S, and U).
Please submit your requests to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda to Dr. McKnight at
If you would like to file a written statement detailing your views on scientific opportunities within the emerging field of HEDP, you may do so anytime before the workshop. To be considered by the IWG, all written comments submitted after the workshop must be received by 5 p.m., Friday, June 11, 2004. You may submit comments electronically or by mail to Dr. McKnight at the following address: Dr. Ronald H. McKnight, HEDP Workshop, 8 Michele Court, Gaithersburg, MD 20878. Telephone: (301) 869-7212. Email:
The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) was established under Executive Order 12881 on November 23, 1993. The Committee on Science is chartered under the NSTC. The purpose of the Committee on Science is to advise and assist the NSTC, with emphasis on those federally supported efforts that develop new knowledge in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Notice of new information collection to be submitted to OMB for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
In accordance with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments on this collection of information are welcome and should be submitted on or before June 3, 2004 to both the OMB reviewer and the FDIC contact listed below.
Information about this submission, including copies of the proposed collection of information, may be obtained by calling or writing the FDIC contact listed below.
Leneta G. Gregorie, Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 898-3719, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Room MB-3082, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429. All comments should refer to the “SEEP Application.” Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Mark Menchik, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.
Leneta G. Gregorie, at the address identified above.
Proposal to establish the following new collection of information:
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the information collection, 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 information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Federal Housing Finance Board.
Notice.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) has submitted the information collection entitled “Affordable Housing Program” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval of a three-year extension of the OMB control number, which is due to expire on June 30, 2004.
Interested persons may submit comments on or before June 3, 2004.
Submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Housing Finance Board, Washington, DC 20503.
Charles E. McLean, Jr., Associate Director, Community Investment and Affordable Housing Division, Office of Supervision, by telephone at 202/408-2537 or by electronic mail at
Section 10(j) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) (12 U.S.C. 1430(j)), requires the Finance Board to promulgate regulations under which the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks) must establish an Affordable Housing Program (AHP) to make subsidized advances to members engaged in lending for long term, low- and moderate-income, owner-occupied and affordable rental housing at subsidized interest rates. Section 10(j) also establishes the standards and requirements for making subsidized AHP advances to FHLBank members. Part 951 of the Finance Board regulations (12 CFR part 951), implements the statutory requirements and authorizes the FHLBanks to make AHP funding decisions.
The information collection contained in part 951 is necessary to enable and is used by the FHLBanks to determine whether an AHP applicant satisfies the statutory and regulatory requirements to receive subsidized advances or direct subsidies under the AHP. The Finance Board uses the information collection to ensure that FHLBank funding decisions, and the use of the funds awarded, are consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements.
The OMB control number for the information collection is 3069-0006. The OMB clearance for the information collection expires on June 30, 2004.
The likely respondents include applicants for AHP funding.
The Finance Board has analyzed the cost and hour burden for the seven facets of the information collection—AHP applications, AHP modification requests, monitoring agreements, recapture agreements, homeownership assistance program applications, verifications of statutory and regulatory compliance at the time of subsidy disbursement, and Bank Advisory Council reports and recommendations on AHP Implementation Plans. As explained in more detail below, the estimate for the total annual hour burden for applicant and member respondents is 63,038 hours.
The Finance Board estimates a total annual average of 2,050 applicants for AHP funding, with 1 response per applicant. The estimate for the average hours per application is 25 hours. The estimate for the total annual hour burden for AHP applications is 51,250 hours (2050 applicants × 1 application × 25 hours).
The Finance Board estimates a total annual average of 150 AHP modification requests, with 1 request per respondent. The estimate for the average hours per modification request is 3 hours. The estimate for the total annual hour burden for AHP modification requests is 450 hours (150 respondents × 1 request × 3 hours).
The Finance Board estimates a total annual average of 825 AHP monitoring agreements, with 1 agreement per respondent. The estimate for the average hours to implement each AHP monitoring agreement and prepare and review required reports and certifications is 4.5 hours. The estimate for the total annual hour burden for AHP monitoring agreements is 3,713 hours (825 respondents × 1 agreement × 4.5 hours).
The Finance Board estimates a total annual average of 825 AHP recapture
The Finance Board estimates a total annual average of 2,400 homeownership assistance program applications, with 1 application per respondent. The estimate for the average hours to prepare each homeownership assistance program application and certify compliance upon disbursement of funds is 2 hours. The estimate for the total annual hour burden for homeownership assistance program applications is 4,800 hours (2,400 respondents × 1 application × 2 hours).
The Finance Board estimates a total annual average of 2,000 submissions to verify compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements at the time of AHP subsidy disbursement, with 1 submission per respondent. The estimate for the average hours to prepare and submit a verification of compliance submission is 1 hour. The estimate for the total annual hour burden for verification of compliance submissions is 2,000 hours (2,000 respondents × 1 submission × 1 hours).
Member and applicant respondents incur no costs because the FHLBank Advisory Councils prepare and the FHLBanks and Finance Board review Advisory Council reports and recommendations.
In accordance with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.8(d), the Finance Board published a request for public comments regarding this information collection in the
Written comments are requested on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of Finance Board functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Finance Board's estimates of the burdens of the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be submitted to OMB in writing at the address listed above.
By the Federal Housing Finance Board.
Notice is hereby given of the final approval of proposed information collection by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) under OMB delegated authority, as per 5 CFR 1320.16 (OMB Regulations on Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public). Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the OMB 83-Is and supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Acting Federal Reserve Clearance Officer—Michelle Long—Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202-452-3829).
OMB Desk Officer—Mark Menchik—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.
1.
If the Board approves implementation of a permanent program then a final rulemaking will be published announcing the permanent program.
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 May 18, 2004.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 28, 2004.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 28, 2004.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 28, 2004.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 498-1210. Send written comments to CDC, Desk Officer, Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.
ATSDR is mandated pursuant to the 1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and its 1986 Amendments, the Superfund Amendments and Re-authorization Act (SARA), to prevent or mitigate adverse human health effects and diminished quality of life resulting from exposure to hazardous substances in the environment. ATSDR plans activities to address these issues which include conducting health studies at sites on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Priorities List (NPL) to determine whether and to what degree exposure to hazardous substances at these sites are harmful to human health.
The United States Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, is one of the federal facilities on EPA's National Priorities List. In 1982, periodic sampling of drinking water sources began at Camp Lejeune to comply with regulations of the national Safe Drinking Water Act. The sample results showed that the drinking water supplied to some of the base housing units was contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The specific chemicals of concern were trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (or perchloroethylene) (PCE), dichloroethylene, and methylene chloride. These chemicals are used as solvents to clean machinery and weapons and in dry cleaning operations. A 1997 ATSDR public health assessment (PHA) of the base recommended that an epidemiological study be considered to determine if mothers exposed to VOCs in drinking water during their pregnancies were at higher risk of giving birth to a child with health problems such as a birth defect or a childhood cancer. ATSDR's initial response to the PHA recommendation was to conduct a study at Camp Lejeune to evaluate whether mothers who were exposed to the contaminated drinking water during pregnancy were at higher risk of having a child which was “small for gestational age” (
In response to the PHA recommendation, ATSDR began the multi-step process of determining the appropriateness of conducting an epidemiological study of specific childhood cancers and birth defects at Camp Lejeune. Based on the scientific literature, ATSDR decided to focus on specific childhood cancers and birth defects: Childhood leukemia, childhood non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, spina bifida, anencephaly, cleft lip and cleft palate. ATSDR conducted a survey in 1999-2002 (OMB No. 0923-0023) to identify all cases of the specific birth defects and childhood cancers. About an 80 percent participation rate was achieved among the approximately 16,000 to 17,000 births that occurred among women who were pregnant while living at Camp Lejeune during the study period 1968-1985. These years were chosen because 1968 is the first year that birth certificates were computerized in North Carolina, and 1985 is the last year that VOC contamination was detected at the base. All of the participants who took part in the Camp Lejeune Survey in 1999-2002 gave permission to be contacted for future studies. Additionally, many survey participants have telephoned ATSDR to request the results of the survey and inquire about future studies.
The overall objective of the proposed case-control study is to examine whether there is an association between maternal exposures during pregnancy to TCE and PCE in drinking water at Camp Lejeune during the period of 1968-1985 and the risk of specific birth defects (spina bifida, anencephaly, cleft lip and cleft palate) and childhood cancers (childhood leukemia and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma) in offspring.
ATSDR continues to verify that the child had the birth defect or childhood cancer reported by the parents in the survey. The parents of the children with possible birth defects or childhood cancers of concern were contacted and asked to sign a medical records release form so that ATSDR could gain access to the medical records for their children. If the child had reached 18 years of age, he or she was contacted and asked to sign a medical records release form.
Once the review of medical records is complete, the final step is to conduct an epidemiological study that includes all the cases of birth defects and childhood cancers of concern. The study will also include a control sample of children who did not have a birth defect or a childhood cancer and whose mothers lived at Camp Lejeune during their pregnancy over the period 1968-1985. The study plans to enroll 33 cases and 167 controls over the course of one year. The epidemiological study will require the computer modeling of the drinking water system at Camp Lejeune over the period 1968-1985 in order to determine as accurately as possible which mothers were exposed to the VOCs in the drinking water during their pregnancy and which mothers were not exposed during their pregnancy.
To reduce the amount of time required by the respondents, Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATI) will be conducted. Following completion of all respondent interviews, the data will be tabulated and analyzed (the case group will be compared with the control group). Because only a very small number of studies have looked at the risk of birth defects and childhood cancers among children born to mothers exposed during pregnancy to VOCs in drinking water, the proposed study will aid in developing or contributing to generalizable knowledge.
The estimated annualized burden is 150 hours.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee Conference Call Meeting:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services office has been delegated the authority to sign
• To study the extent to which different HtE approaches impact employment, earnings, income, welfare dependence, and the presence or persistence of employment barriers;
• To collect data on a wider range of outcome measures than is available through Welfare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Social Security, the Criminal Justice System or Unemployment Insurance records in order to understand the family circumstances and attributes and situations that contribute to the difficulties in finding employment; job retention and job quality; educational attainment; interactions with and knowledge of the HtE program; household composition; childcare; transportation; health care; income; physical and mental health problems; substance abuse; domestic violence; and criminal history.
• To conduct non-experimental analyses to explain participation decisions and provide a descriptive picture of the circumstances of individuals who are hard-to-employ;
• To obtain participation information important to the evaluation's benefit-cost component; and to obtain contact information for possible future follow-up, information that will be important to achieving high response rates for additional surveys.
Materials for the HtE baseline survey were previously submitted to OMB on April 28, 2003, and were subsequently approved. The purpose of this revision is to introduce new instruments for the collection of baseline data in the mental health barriers site. Much of the substantive content in these instruments was included in the Mental Health Module and Core Survey that were approved in our original submission. All other instruments included in this submission remain unchanged since OMB approval.
We had originally planned to administer a core set of questions via Audio-Computer Assisted Self Interview (ACASI-Core) to survey respondents in all sites. However, the revised mental health instruments have eliminated the need for a Core survey in this site, so we have reduced the number of Core survey respondents that were estimated in the previous OMB submission by 2,000 (the number of respondents originally estimated for the mental health site). The criminal justice site, which is the only site that has begun random assignment, ultimately did not implement the Core survey, using baseline data supplied by the program instead. However, we did not deduct the number of criminal justice sample members from the number of Core survey respondents for the purpose of comparability.
A separate set of questions will be administered in two stages (via a mail-out/telephone screener and a detailed telephone interview) in the site operating a program aimed at survey respondents with mental health problems. Approximately 918 respondents will complete the full 30 minutes of baseline data collection.
Finally, in the two-generation sites (as many as two of the six sites), survey respondents will complete a two-generation survey administered by a Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI), in addition to the Core survey.
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection: E-mail address:
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) (Pub. L. 105-89) includes new mandates on interjurisdictional resources and removing barriers to the placement of children across state lines. Collecting data from state child welfare agencies about effective strategies for facilitating interjurisdictional placements will help the Children's Bureau support efforts that complement those strategies. Data collected on the benefits and weaknesses of various strategies will help the Children's Bureau plan for future activities. Data will be collected through a web-based survey; respondents will have the option to complete the survey using a paper version.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. E-mail address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
(1) A Statement of need;
(2) a requirements analysis and feasibility study;
(3) a cost benefit analysis;
(4) a proposed activity schedule; and,
(5) a proposed budget.
HHS' determination of a state agency's need to acquire requested ADP equipment or services is authorized at sections 402(a)(5), 452(a)(1), 1902(a)(4) and 1102 of the Social Security Act.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,751.5.
In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfante Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. E-mail address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
The need for the above information is to provide the Administration and Congress with fiscal estimates in time for hearings about LIHEAP appropriations and program performance. The information also is included in the Department's annual LIHEAP Report to Congress. Survey information also will be posted on the Office of Community Services' LIHEAP Web site for access by grantees and other interested parties.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments my be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. E-mail address:
Administration on Children, Youth and Families, ACF, DHHS.
Notice.
This request is being published in accordance with section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Notice is hereby given that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services seeks qualified individuals to become members of the Advisory Committee on Head Start Accountability and Educational Performance Measures. The Secretary seeks authorities knowledgeable and expert in the fields of childhood development and psychometrics, assessment of child progress and evaluation of program service delivery.
Individuals have dirty (30) days from the date of publication to submit nominations. Nominations will only be accepted electronically, although individuals for whom this procedure introduces a barrier may make alternative arrangements through the contact information below. To place a nomination, please submit a cover letter summarizing areas of expertise, curriculum vita, and contact information (including an address, phone number and e-mail address) to Carol Whitten, e-mail address:
Carol Whitten, Head Start Bureau, e-mail
In accordance with section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 102-3.65 and the General Services Administration (GSA) rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has determined that the establishment of the Advisory Committee on Head Start Accountability and Educational Performance Measures (the Committee) is in the public interest in connection with supporting the school readiness of low-income children and the overall effectiveness and purpose of the Federal Head Start program.
The purpose of the Committee is to help assess the progress in developing and implementing the Head Start National Reporting System (NRS) and provide recommendations for integrating the NRS with other ongoing assessments of the effectiveness of the program. The Committee will work in coordination with the existing Technical Work Group (TWG), which helped develop the NRS, and make recommendations for how the NRS can be included in the broader assessment framework found in the Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), the national Head Start Impact Study, Head Start's Performance Based Outcome System, and the evaluation of the Early Head Start program.
The Committee shall consist of not more than ten (10) members including the Chair and Co-Chair. Appointments shall be made by the Secretary from authorities knowledgeable and expert in the fields of childhood development and psychometrics, assessment of child progress and evaluation of program service delivery. The Department will give close attention to equitable geographic distribution and to minority and gender representation in making appointments to the Committee, so long as the effectiveness of the Committee is not diminished. Individuals must have experience with large scale survey studies, large scale program evaluations, and be recognized authorities in their field of expertise. Field of expertise is not limited, per se, but individuals with expertise in areas of child development and assessment that are pertinent to documenting children's school readiness outcomes will make the strongest possible contributions to the work of the Committee. The Committee shall meet three times unless, after consultation with the Chair or Co-Chair,
Unless renewed by appropriate action prior to its expiration, the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Head Start Accountability and Educational Performance Measures shall terminate on February 27, 2006.
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services.
The due date for receipt of applications is June 18, 2004.
The Office of Community Services (OCS) within the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) announces that competing applications will be accepted for a new grant pursuant to the Secretary's authority under section 674(b) of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Act, as amended, by the Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services (COATES) Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998, (Pub. L. 105-285).
The proposed grant will fund up to two capacity building grants to CSBG eligible entities to promote greater collaboration within the Community Services Network to address the special disease prevention and health promotion needs of low-income minority populations in support of the national community action Goal 4 (“Partnerships Among Supporters and Providers of Service to Low-Income People are Achieved”).
The following definitions apply:
Community Action Goal 4—Partnerships Among Supporters and Providers of Service to Low-Income People are Achieved.
Collaborations for Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.
OCS recognizes the role played by community action in assuring that the health care needs of low-income people are met. Over the years, local eligible entities have, for example:
• Advocated successfully for expanded health care opportunities for low-income community residents, including health insurance for workers, and the placement, retention, or expansion of community-based, accessible, and affordable health care services and facilities;
• Established and maintained their own health care services and clinics;
• Counseled and helped low-income people apply for and receive health care subsidies and benefits for which they may be entitled;
• Assisted low-income people gain employment with benefits including health insurance;
• Partnered with other public and private health care providers in the community to improve the health status of participants in comprehensive, case management self-sufficiency programs.
OCS seeks to support and supplement the President's initiative to expand the number of community health centers in underserved, low-income communities, and to increase outreach and service effectiveness of such centers through enhanced collaboration among other community-based organizations and programs.
OCS will fund up to three grants to local eligible entities to build greater capacity within the Community Services Network to address the special disease prevention and health promotion needs of low-income minority populations. Specifically, OCS will fund new or expanded partnerships between local eligible entities and community-based health care organizations, especially federally-funded community health centers, to address one or more of the following diseases that disproportionately affect minority populations:
• Diabetes.
• Obesity.
• Hypertension (high blood pressure).
• Hepatitis C.
• Heart Disease.
The successful applicant for a disease prevention and health care capacity-building grant will include in their application:
1. A description of the incidence and severity of one or more of the diseases within the geographic area to be served by the proposed grant, and an estimation of the risk to disease of residents in that area;
2. Specific and measurable outcomes to be achieved by the proposed collaboration that address both existing health conditions (
3. A plan of action describing outreach, intervention, treatment, health information and other prevention strategies, to address current medical care needs and reduce future incidence and severity;
4. A list of anticipated partners, including health care and other community-based organizations and services, such as schools, faith-based organizations, and employers. And, for each anticipated partner, a description of:
• Services or activities to be provided as part of the collaboration (
• Resources (financial, staffing, in-kind) to be contributed to the collaboration;
• Activities to be support by this grant and the cost of those activities.
5. Letters of commitment from each anticipated partner;
6. A plan to establish and maintain appropriate information systems to record, store, and report health status information of individuals served on a “real-time basis” in order to support on-going disease prevention and health promotion activities and provide a basis for overall assessment of collaboration effectiveness.
Community Services Block Grant eligible entities, State Community Action Associations including faith-based organizations, nonprofit organizations having 501(c)(3) status, and nonprofits that do not have 501(c)(3) status.
As prescribed by the Community Services Block Grant Act (Pub. L. 105-285, section 678(c)(2), eligible applicants are eligible entities (
Any non-profit organization submitting an application must submit proof of its non-profit status in its application at the time of submission. The non-profit agency can accomplish this by providing:
(a) A reference to the applicant organization's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in the IRS Code.
(b) A copy of a currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate.
(c) A statement from a State taxing body, State attorney general, or other appropriate State official certifying that the applicant organization has a non-profit status and that none of the net earnings accrue to any private shareholders or individuals.
(d) A certified copy of the organization's certificate of incorporation or similar document that clearly establishes non-profit status.
(e) Or any of the items referenced above for a State or national parent organization and a statement signed by the parent organization that the applicant organization is a local non-profit affiliate.
Private, non-profit organizations are encouraged to submit with their applications the survey located under “Grant Related Documents and Forms” titled “Survey for Private, Non-Profit Grant Applicants” at
None.
On June 27, 2003, the Office of Management and Budget published in the
A DUNS number will be required for every application for a new award or renewal/continuation of an award, including applications or plans under formula, entitlement and block grant programs, submitted on or after October 1, 2003.
Please ensure that your organization has a DUNS number. You may acquire a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line on 1-866-705-5711 or you may request a number on-line at
Office of Community Services Operations Center, Attn: Dr. Margaret Washnitzer, 1815 Fort Meyer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22209: Telephone: (800) 281-9519.
An original and two copies of the complete application are required. The original and the 2 copies must include all required forms, certifications, assurances, and appendices, be signed by an authorized representative of the applicant organization, have original signatures, and be submitted unbound. Applicants have the option of omitting from the application copies (not the original) specific salary rates or amounts for individuals specified in the application budget and Social Security Numbers. The copies may include summary salary information.
You may submit your application to us in either electronic or paper format. To submit an application electronically, please use the
Please note the following if you plan to submit your application electronically via Grants.gov:
• Electronic submission is voluntary.
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. We strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov.
• To use Grants.gov, you, as the applicant, must have a DUNS Number and register in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR). You should allow a minimum of five days to complete the CCR registration.
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit a grant application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit an application in paper format.
• You may submit all documents electronically, including all information typically included on the SF 424 and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• Your application must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this program announcement.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The Administration for Children and Families will retrieve your application from Grants.gov.
• We may request that you provide original signatures on forms at a later date.
• You may access the electronic application for this program on
Each application must include the following components:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Each application should include one signed original application and two additional copies of the same application.
Submit application materials on white 8
Please do not include organizational brochures or other promotional materials, slides, films, clips, etc.
The font size may be no smaller than 12 pitch and the margins must be at least one inch on all sides.
Number all application pages sequentially throughout the package, beginning with the abstract of the proposed project as page number one.
Please present application materials either in loose-leaf notebooks or in folders with pages two-hole punched at the top center and fastened separately with a slide paper fastener.
The application package including sections for the Table of Contents, Project Abstract, Project and Budget Narratives must not exceed 30 pages. The page limitation does not include the following attachments and appendices: Standard Forms for Assurances, Certifications, Disclosures and appendices. The page limitation also does not apply to any supplemental documents as required in this announcement.
Applicants requesting financial assistance for a non-construction project must sign and return Standard Form 424B, Assurances: Non-Construction Programs with their applications.
Applicants must provide a Certification Regarding Lobbying. Prior to receiving an award in excess of $100,000, applicants shall furnish an executed copy of the lobbying certification. Applicants must sign and return the certification with their application.
Applicants must make the appropriate certification of their compliance with all Federal statutes relating to nondiscrimination. By signing and submitting the applications, applicants are providing the certification and need not mail back a certification form.
Applicants must make the appropriate certification of their compliance with the requirements of the Pro-Children Act of 1994 as outlined in Certification Regarding Environmental Tobacco Smoke. By signing and submitting the applications, applicants are providing the certification and need not mail back a certification form.
(a) The application must contain a signed Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance, a Standard Form 424-A, Budget Information, and signed Standard Form 424-B, Assurance—Non-Construction Programs, completed according to instructions provided in this Program Announcement. The Forms SF-424 and SF-424B must be signed by an official of the organization applying for the grant who has authority to obligate the organization legally. The applicant's legal name as required on the SF-424 (Item 5) must match that listed as corresponding to the Employer Identification Number (Item 6);
(b) The application must include a project narrative that meets the requirements set forth in this announcement;
(c) The application must contain documentation of the applicant's tax-exempt status as indicated in the “Funding Opportunity Description” section of this announcement;
Private, non-profit organizations are encouraged to submit with their applications the survey located under “Grant Related Documents and Forms” titled “Survey for Private, Non-Profit Grant Applicants.” The forms are located on the Web at
It is in the applicant's best interest to ensure that the project description is easy to read, logically developed in accordance with the evaluation criteria and adheres to the page limitation. In addition, applicants should be mindful of the importance of preparing and submitting applications using language, terms, concepts and descriptions that are generally known by the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) network.
The maximum number of pages for supplemental documentation is 10 pages. The supplemental documentation, subject to the 10-page limit, must be numbered and might include brief resumes, position descriptions, proof of non-profit status, news clippings, press releases, etc. Supplemental documentation over the 10-page limit will not be reviewed.
Applicants must include letters of support or agreement, if appropriate or applicable, in reference to the project description. Letters of support are not counted as part of the 30-page project description limit or the 10-page supplemental documentation limit. All applications must comply with the following requirements as noted:
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed and reviewing the collection information.
The closing time and date for receipt of applications is any time before 4:30 p.m. eastern standard time (e.s.t.) on June 18, 2004. Mailed or hand carried applications received after 4:30 p.m. on the closing date will be classified as late.
Applications hand carried by applicants, applicant couriers, other representatives of the applicant, or by overnight/express mail couriers shall be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline date, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., eastern standard time (e.s.t.), at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services' Operations Center, 1815 North Fort Meyer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22209, between Monday and Friday (excluding Federal holidays). This address must appear on the envelope/package containing the application with the note: “Attention: Barbara Ziegler Johnson”. Applicants are cautioned that express/overnight mail services do not always deliver as agreed.
ACF will not send acknowledgements of receipt of application materials.
This program is covered under Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” and 45 CFR part 100, “Intergovernmental Review of Department of Health and Human Services Programs and Activities.” Under the Order, States may design their own processes for reviewing and commenting on proposed Federal assistance under covered programs. As of October 1, 2003, the following jurisdictions have elected not to participate in the Executive Order process. Applicants from these jurisdictions or for projects administered by federally-recognized Indian tribes need take no action in regard to E.O. 12372:
All States and territories except Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado,
Although the jurisdictions listed above no longer participate in the process, entities which have met the eligibility requirements of the program are still eligible to apply for a grant even if a State, territory, commonwealth, etc. does not have a SPOC. All remaining jurisdictions participate in the Executive Order process and have established SPOCs. Applicants from participating jurisdictions should contact their SPOCs as soon as possible to alert them of the prospective applications and receive instructions. Applicants must submit any required material to the SPOCs as soon as possible so that the program office can obtain and review SPOC comments as part of the award process. The applicant must submit all required materials, if any, to the SPOC and indicate the date of this submittal (or the date of contact if no submittal is required) on the Standard Form 424, item 16a. Under 45 CFR 100.8(a)(2), a SPOC has 60 days from the application deadline to comment on proposed new or competing continuation awards.
SPOCs are encouraged to eliminate the submission of routine endorsements as official recommendations. Additionally, SPOCs are requested to clearly differentiate between mere advisory comments and those official State process recommendations which may trigger the “accommodate or explain” rule.
When comments are submitted directly to ACF, they should be addressed to: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Division of Discretionary Grants, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Mail Stop 6C-462, Washington, DC 20447.
A list of the Single Points of Contact for each State and territory is included with the application materials for this announcement.
OCS will not fund any project where the role of the applicant is primarily to serve as a conduit for funds to organizations other than the applicant. The applicant must have a substantive role in the implementation of the project for which funding is requested. This prohibition does not bar the making of sub-grants or sub-contracting for specific services or activities that are needed to conduct the project.
Each application may include only one proposed project.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, the Department is required to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval of any reporting and record keeping requirements in regulations including program announcements. This program announcement does not contain information collection requirements beyond those approved for ACF grant applications under the Program Narrative Statement by OMB Approval Number 0970-0139.
The project description is approved under OMB Control Number 0970-0139. 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.
Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 25 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed and reviewing the collection of information.
The following are instructions and guidelines on how to prepare the “project summary/abstract” and “Full Project Description” sections of the application. Under the evaluation criteria section, note that each criterion is preceded by the generic evaluation requirement under the ACF Uniform Project Description (UPD). The UPD was approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), control Number 0970-0139, expiration date 12/31/2003. The generic UPD requirement is followed by the evaluation criterion specific to the Community Services Block Grant legislation.
The project description provides a major means by which an application is evaluated and ranked to compete with other applications for available assistance. The project description should be concise and complete and should address the activity for which Federal funds are being requested. Supporting documents should be included where they can present information clearly and succinctly. In preparing your project description, all information requested through each specific evaluation criteria should be provided. Awarding offices use this and other information in making their funding recommendations. It is important, therefore, that this information be included in the application.
Applicants required to submit a full project description shall prepare the project description statement in accordance with the following instructions and the specified evaluation criteria. The instructions give a broad overview of what your project description should include while the evaluation criteria expands and clarifies
Provide a summary of the project description (a page or less) with reference to the funding request.
Clearly identify the physical, economic, social, financial, institutional, and/or other problem(s) requiring a solution. The need for assistance must be demonstrated and the principal and subordinate objectives of the project must be clearly stated; supporting documentation, such as letters of support and testimonials from concerned interests other than the applicant, may be included. Any relevant data based on planning studies should be included or referred to in the endnotes/footnotes. Incorporate demographic data and participant/beneficiary information, as needed. In developing the project description, the applicant may volunteer or be requested to provide information on the total range of projects currently being conducted and supported (or to be initiated), some of which may be outside the scope of the program announcement.
Identify the results and benefits to be derived. For example, describe the population to be served by the program and the number of new jobs that will be targeted to the target population. Explain how the project will reach the targeted population, how it will benefit participants including how it will support individuals to become more economically self-sufficient.
Outline a plan of action which describes the scope and detail of how the proposed work will be accomplished. Account for all functions or activities identified in the application. Cite factors which might accelerate or decelerate the work and state your reason for taking the proposed approach rather than others. Describe any unusual features of the project such as design or technological innovations, reductions in cost or time, or extraordinary social and community involvement.
Provide quantitative monthly or quarterly projections of the accomplishments to be achieved for each function or activity in such terms as the number of people to be served and the number of activities accomplished.. Account for all functions or activities identified in the application. Cite factors that might accelerate or decelerate the work and state your reasons for taking the proposed approach rather than others. Describe any unusual features of the project such as design or technical innovations, reductions in cost or time or extraordinary social and community involvement.
Provide quantitative monthly or quarterly projections of the accomplishments to be achieved for each function or activity in , for example such terms as the “number of people served.” When accomplishments cannot be quantified by activity or function, list them in chronological order to show the schedule of accomplishments and their target dates.
If any data is to be collected, maintained, and/or disseminated, clearance may be required from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This clearance pertains to any “collection of information that is conducted or sponsored by ACF.”
List organizations, cooperating entities, consultants, or other key individuals who will work on the project along with a short description of the nature of their effort or contribution.
Provide a narrative addressing how the results of the project and the conduct of the project will be evaluated. In addressing the evaluation of results, state how you will determine the extent to which the project has achieved its stated objectives and the extent to which the accomplishment of objectives can be attributed to the project. Discuss the criteria to be used to evaluate results, and explain the methodology that will be used to determine if the needs identified and discussed are being met and if the project results and benefits are being achieved. With respect to the conduct of the project, define the procedures to be employed to determine whether the project is being conducted in a manner consistent with the work plan presented and discuss the impact of the project's various activities on the project's effectiveness.
Provide information on the applicant organization(s) and cooperating partners such as organizational charts, financial statements, audit reports or statements from CPAs/Licensed Public Accountants, Employer Identification Numbers, names of bond carriers, contact persons and telephone numbers, child care licenses and other documentation of professional accreditation, information on compliance with Federal/State/local government standards, documentation of experience in the program area, and other pertinent information. Any non-profit organization submitting an application must submit proof of its non-profit status in its application at the time of submission.
The non-profit agency can accomplish this by providing a copy of the applicant's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code, or by providing a copy of the currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate, or by providing a copy of the articles of incorporation bearing the seal of the State in which the corporation or association is domiciled.
Provide line item detail and detailed calculations for each budget object class identified on the Budget Information form. Detailed calculations must include estimation methods, quantities, unit costs, and other similar quantitative detail sufficient for the calculation to be duplicated. The detailed budget must also include a breakout by the funding sources identified in Block 15 of the SF-424.
Provide a narrative budget justification that describes how the categorical costs are derived. Discuss the necessity, reasonableness, and allocability of the proposed costs.
(1) The work program is results-oriented, approximately related to the legislative mandate and specifically related to the priority area under which funds are being requested. Application addresses the following: specific outcomes to be achieved; performance targets that the project is committed to achieving, including a discussion of and how the project will verify the achievement of these targets; critical milestones which must be achieved if results are to be gained; organizational support, the level of support from the applicant organization; past performance in similar work; and specific resources contributed to the project that are critical to success.
(2) The application defines the comprehensive nature of the project and methods that will be used to ensure that the results can be used to address a statewide or nationwide project as defined by the description of the particular priority area.
(1) The application demonstrates that it has experience and a successful record of accomplishment relevant to the specific activities it proposes to accomplish.
(2) If the application proposes to provide training and technical assistance, it details its abilities to provide those services on a nationwide basis. If applicable, information provided by the applicant also addresses related achievements and competence of each cooperating or sponsoring organization.
(3) The application fully describes, for example in a resume, the experience and skills of the proposed project director and primary staff showing specific qualifications and professional experiences relevant to the successful implementation of the proposed project.
(4) The application describes how applicant will involve partners in the Community Services Network in its activities. Where appropriate, application describes how applicant will interface with other related organizations.
(5) If subcontracts are proposed, the application documents the willingness and capacity of the subcontracting organization(s) to participate as described.
(1) The application documents that the proposed project addresses vital needs related to the program purposes and provides statistics and other data and information in support of its contention.
(2) The application provides current supporting documentation or other testimonies regarding needs from State CSBG Directors, CAAs and local service providers and/or State and Regional organizations of CAAs and other local service providers.
(1) The application describes how the project will assure long-term program and management improvements for State CSBG offices, CAA State and/or regional associations, CAAs and/or other local providers of CSBG services and activities.
(2) The application indicates the types and amounts of public and/or private resources it will mobilize, how those resources will directly benefit the project, and how the project will ultimately benefit low-income individuals and families.
(3) If the application proposes a project with a training and technical assistance focus, the application indicates the number of organizations and/or staff that will benefit from those services.
(4) If the application proposes a project with data collection focus, the application describes the mechanism it will use to collect data, how it can assure collections from a significant number of States, and the number of States willing to submit data to the applicant.
(5) If the application proposes to develop a symposium series or other policy-related project(s), the application identifies the number and types of beneficiaries.
(6) The application describes methods of securing participant feedback and evaluations of activities.
(1) The resources requested are reasonable and adequate to accomplish the project.
(2) Total costs are reasonable and consistent with anticipated results.
Each application submitted to OCS will be screened to determine whether it was received by the closing date and time.
Applications received by the closing date and time will be screened for completeness and conformity with the following requirements. Only complete applications that meet the requirements listed below will be reviewed and evaluated competitively. Other applications will be returned to the applicants with a notation that they were unacceptable and will not be reviewed.
All applications must comply with the following requirements except as noted:
Applications that pass the initial OCS screening will be reviewed and rated by a panel based on the program elements and review criteria presented in relevant sections of this program announcement.
The review criteria are designed to enable the review panel to assess the quality of a proposed project and determine the likelihood of its success. The criteria are closely related to each other and are considered as a whole in judging the overall quality of an application. The review panel awards points only to applications that are responsive to the program elements and relevant review criteria within the context of this program announcement.
The OCS Director and program staff use the reviewer scores when considering competing applications. Reviewer scores will weigh heavily in funding decisions, but will not be the only factors considered.
Applications generally will be considered in order of the average scores assigned by the review panel. Because other important factors are taken into consideration, highly ranked applications are not guaranteed funding. These other considerations include, for example: The timely and proper completion by the applicant of projects funded with OCS funds granted in the last five (5) years; comments of reviewers and government officials; staff evaluation and input; amount and duration of the grant requested and the proposed project's consistency and harmony with OCS goals and policy; geographic distribution of applications; previous program performance of applicants; compliance with grant terms under previous HHS grants, including the actual dedication to program of mobilized resources as set forth in project applications; audit reports; investigative reports; and applicant's progress in resolving any final audit disallowance on previous OCS or other Federal agency grants.
Following approval of the application selected for funding, ACF will mail a written notice of project approval and authority to draw down project funds. The official award document is the Financial Assistance Award that specifies the amount of Federal funds approved for use in the project, the project and budget period for which support is provided and the terms and conditions of the award. This Financial Assistance Award will be signed and issued via postal mail by an authorized Grants Officer.
ACF will notify unsuccessful applicants after the award is issued to the successful applicant.
Grantees are subject to the requirements in 45 CFR part 74 (non-governmental) or 45 CFR part 92 (governmental).
Special Terms and Conditions of Awards: None.
All grantees are required to submit semi-annual program reports and semi-annual expenditure reports (SF-269) with final reports due 90 days after the project end date. A suggested format for the program report will be sent to all grantees after the awards are made.
Additional information about this program and its purpose can be located on the following Web site:
Sections 674(b)(2) and 678A(a)(1)(A) of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Act of 1981, (Pub. L. 97-35) as amended by the Community Opportunities, Accountability, Training and Education Services (COATES) Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-285), authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to use a percentage of appropriated funds for training, technical assistance, planning, evaluation, performance measurement, monitoring, to assist States in carrying out corrective actions and to correct programmatic deficiencies of eligible entities, and for reporting and data collection activities related to programs or projects carried out under the CSBG Act. The Secretary may administer these activities through grants, contracts or cooperative agreements with appropriate entities.
The following definitions apply:
Training and technical assistance for Community Action Agencies (CAAs) and other eligible entities concerning national security and anti-terrorism planning, response and communications.
The purpose of this priority area is to improve the capacity of CAAs and other eligible entities to plan, administer and evaluate effective security and anti-terrorism community advocacy and communications strategies in urban and rural areas.
The grant will support four important component activities. The first is to provide training and technical assistance to CAA and other eligible entities staff and members of agency Boards of Directors for planning, administering and evaluating community strategies concerning national security and anti-terrorism planning. This will include providing training on a number of issues such as developing local communications centers and volunteer teams that will be vital for effective local-based security and anti-terrorism planning and communications in low-income communities.
The second is to provide training and technical assistance and other aid to help CAAs identify and mobilize human, financial and other resources for the benefit of low-income individuals, families and communities on issues concerning national security and anti-terrorism response.
The third component is to develop and produce manuals, publications and other informational and marketing materials on the topic of why it is vital for CAAs and other organizations that serve low-income communities to be part of local security and anti-terrorism planning and response.
Finally, the fourth component is to provide necessary equipment and staff to enable at least ten CAAs in urban and rural areas throughout the nation to develop a team of volunteers to mobilize the community concerning national security and anti-terrorism response.
An application that exceeds the upper value of the dollar range specified will be considered “non-responsive” and will be returned to the applicant without further review.
Nonprofits having a 501 (c) (3) status with the IRS, other than institutions of higher education. Nonprofits that do not have a 501 (c) (3) status with the IRS, other than institutions of higher education. For-profit organizations other than small businesses. Faith-based and Community-based Organizations.
Proof of non-profit status is any one of the following:
(a) A reference to the applicant organization's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in the IRS code.
(b) A copy of a currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate.
(c) A statement from a State taxing body, State Attorney General, or other appropriate State official certifying that the applicant organization has a non-profit status and that none of the net earnings accrue to any private shareholders or individuals.
(d) A certified copy of the organization's certificate of incorporation or similar document that clearly establishes non-profit status.
(e) Any of the items in the subparagraphs immediately above for a State or national parent organization and a statement signed by the parent organization that the applicant organization is a local non-profit affiliate.
Private non-profit organizations are encouraged to submit with their applications the survey located under “Grant Related Documents and Forms” titled “Survey for Private, Non-Profit Grant Applicants” at
None.
On June 27, 2003, the Office of Management and Budget published in the
Please ensure that your organization has a DUNS number. You may acquire a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line on 1-866-705-5711 or you may request a number on-line at
Margaret Washnitzer, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services Operations Center, 1815 Fort Meyer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22209, E-mail:
1. Application Content
Each application must include the following components:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Each application should include one signed original application and two additional copies of the same application.
Submit application materials on white 8
Please do not include organizational brochures or other promotional materials, slides, films, clips, etc.
The font size may be no smaller than 12 pitch and the margins must be at least one inch on all sides.
Number all application pages sequentially throughout the package, beginning with the abstract of the proposed project as page number one.
Please present application materials either in loose-leaf notebooks or in folders with pages two-hole punched at the top center and fastened separately with a slide paper fastener.
The application package including sections for the Table of Contents, Project Abstract, Project and Budget Narratives and Business Plan must not exceed 65 pages. The page limitation does not include the following attachments and appendices: Standard Forms for Assurances, Certifications, Disclosures and appendices. The page limitation also does not apply to any supplemental documents as required in this announcement.
Applicants requesting financial assistance for a non-construction project must sign and return Standard Form 424B, Assurances: Non-Construction Programs with their applications.
Applicants must provide a Certification Regarding Lobbying. Prior to receiving an award in excess of $100,000, applicants shall furnish an executed copy of the lobbying certification. Applicants must sign and return the certification with their applications.
Applicants must make the appropriate certification of their compliance with all Federal statutes relating to nondiscrimination. By signing and submitting the applications, applicants are providing the certification and need not mail back a certification form.
Applicants must make the appropriate certification of their compliance with the requirements of the Pro-Children Act of 1994 as outlined in Certification Regarding Environmental Tobacco Smoke. By signing and submitting the applications, applicants are providing the certification and need not mail back a certification form.
You may submit your application to us in either electronic or paper format. To submit an application electronically, please use the
Please note the following if you plan to submit your application electronically via Grant.gov:
Electronic submission is voluntary.
When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. We strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov.
To use Grants.gov, you, as the applicant, must have a DUNS Number to register in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR). You should allow a minimum of five days to complete the CCR registration.
You will not receive additional point value because you submit a grant application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit an application in paper format.
You may submit all documents electronically, including all information typically included on the SF 424 and all necessary assurance and certifications.
Your application must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this program announcement.
After you electronically submit your application, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The Administration for Children and Families will retrieve your application from Grant.gov.
We may request that you provide original signatures on forms at a later date.
You may access the electronic application for this program on www.Grants.gov.
You must search for the downloadable application package by the CFDA number.
The closing time and date for receipt of applications is 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on June 3, 2004. Mailed or hand carried applications received after 4:30 p.m. on the closing date will be classified as late.
Applications hand carried by applicants, applicant couriers, other representatives of the applicant, or by overnight/express mail couriers shall be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline date, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., EST, at the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services Operations Center, 1815 Fort Meyer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22209 Attention: Barbara Ziegler Johnson. This address must appear on the envelope/package containing the application. Applicants are cautioned that express/overnight mail services do not always deliver as agreed.
This program is covered under Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” and 45 CFR part 100, “Intergovernmental Review of Department of Health and Human Services Programs and Activities.” Under the Order, States may design their own processes for reviewing and commenting on proposed Federal assistance under covered programs. As of October 1, 2003, the following jurisdictions have elected not to participate in the Executive Order process. Applicants from these jurisdictions or for projects administered by federally-recognized Indian Tribes need take no action in regard to E.O. 12372:
All States and Territories except Arkansas, California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, American Samoa, Guam, North Mariana, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands have elected not to participate in the Executive Order process and have established Single Points of Contact (SPOCs). Applicants from these thirty-one jurisdictions need take no action.
Although the jurisdictions listed above no longer participate in the process, entities which have met the eligibility requirements of the program are still eligible to apply for a grant even if a State, Territory, Commonwealth, etc. does not have a SPOC. All remaining jurisdictions participate in the Executive Order process and have established SPOCs. Applicants from participating jurisdictions should contact their SPOCs as soon as possible to alert them of the prospective applications and receive instructions. Applicants must submit any required material to the SPOCs as soon as possible so that the program office can obtain and review SPOC comments as part of the award process. The applicant must submit all required materials, if any, to the SPOC and indicate the date of this submittal (or the date of contact if no submittal is required) on the Standard Form 424, item 16a. Under 45 CFR 100.8(a)(2), a SPOC has 60 days from the application deadline to comment on proposed new or competing continuation awards.
SPOCs are encouraged to eliminate the submission of routine endorsements as official recommendations. Additionally, SPOCs are requested to clearly differentiate between mere advisory comments and those official State process recommendations which may trigger the “accommodate or explain” rule.
When comments are submitted directly to ACF, they should be addressed to: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Division of Discretionary Grants, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Mail Stop 6C-462, Washington, DC 20447.
A list of the Single Points of Contact for each State and Territory is included with the application materials for this announcement.
OCS will not fund any project where the role of the applicant is primarily to serve as a conduit for funds to organizations other than the applicant. The applicant must have a substantive role in the implementation of the project for which funding is requested. This prohibition does not bar the making of sub-grants or sub-contracting for specific services or activities needed to conduct the project.
Each application may include only one proposed project.
Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 25 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed and reviewing the collection of information.
The project description is approved under OMB control # 0970-0139.
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 project description provides a major means by which an application is evaluated and ranked to compete with other applications for available assistance. The project description should be concise and complete and should address the activity for which Federal funds are being requested. Supporting documents should be included where they can present information clearly and succinctly. In preparing your project description, all information requested through each specific evaluation criteria should be provided. Awarding offices use this and other information in making their funding recommendations. It is important, therefore, that this information be included in the application.
Applicants required to submit a full project description shall prepare the project description statement in accordance with the following instructions and the specified evaluation criteria. The instructions give a broad overview of what your project description should include while the evaluation criteria expands and clarifies more program-specific information that is needed.
Provide a summary of the project description (a page or less) with reference to the funding request.
Clearly identify the physical, economic, social, financial, institutional, and/or other problem(s) requiring a solution. The need for assistance must be demonstrated and the principal and subordinate objectives of the project must be clearly stated; supporting documentation, such as letters of support and testimonials from concerned interests other than the applicant, may be included. Any relevant data based on planning studies should be included or referred to in the endnotes/footnotes. Incorporate demographic data and participant/beneficiary information, as needed. In developing the project description, the applicant may volunteer or be requested to provide information on the total range of projects currently being conducted and supported (or to be initiated), some of which may be outside the scope of the program announcement.
Identify the results and benefits to be derived. Explain how the project will reach the targeted population and how it will benefit participants or the community.
Outline a plan of action which describes the scope and detail of how the proposed work will be accomplished. Account for all functions or activities identified in the application. Cite factors which might accelerate or decelerate the work and state your reason for taking the proposed approach rather than others. Describe any unusual features of the project such as design or technological innovations, reductions in cost or time, or extraordinary social and community involvement.
Provide quantitative monthly or quarterly projections of the accomplishments to be achieved for each function or activity in, for example, such terms as the “number of people served.” When accomplishments cannot be quantified by activity or function, list them in chronological order to show the schedule of accomplishments and their target dates.
If any data is to be collected, maintained, and/or disseminated, clearance may be required from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This clearance pertains to any “collection of information that is conducted or sponsored by ACF.”
List organizations, cooperating entities, consultants, or other key individuals who will work on the project along with a short description of the nature of their effort or contribution.
Provide a narrative addressing how the results of the project and the conduct of the project will be evaluated. In addressing the evaluation of results, state how you will determine the extent to which the project has achieved its stated objectives and the extent to which the accomplishment of objectives can be attributed to the project. Discuss the criteria to be used to evaluate results, and explain the methodology that will be used to determine if the needs identified and discussed are being met and if the project results and benefits are being achieved. With respect to the conduct of the project, define the procedures to be employed to determine whether the project is being conducted in a manner consistent with the work plan presented and discuss the impact of the project's various activities on the project's effectiveness.
Provide information on the applicant organization(s) and cooperating partners such as organizational charts, financial statements, audit reports, documentation of professional accreditation, information on compliance with Federal/State/local government standards, documentation of experience in the program area, and other pertinent information.
A non-profit agency can accomplish this by providing a copy of the applicant's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code, or by providing a copy of the currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate, or by providing a copy of the articles of incorporation bearing the seal of the State in which the corporation or association is domiciled.
Provide line item detail and detailed calculations for each budget object class identified on the Budget Information form. Detailed calculations must include estimation methods, quantities, unit costs, and other similar quantitative detail sufficient for the calculation to be duplicated. The detailed budget must also include a breakout by the funding sources identified in Block 15 of the SF-424.
Provide a narrative budget justification that describes how the categorical costs are derived. Discuss the necessity, reasonableness, and allocability of the proposed costs.
(1) The work program is results-oriented, approximately related to the legislative mandate and specifically related to the priority area under which funds are being requested. Application addresses the following: specific outcomes to be achieved; performance targets that the project is committed to achieving, including a discussion of and
(2) The application defines the comprehensive nature of the project and methods that will be used to ensure that the results can be used to address a statewide or nationwide project as defined by the description of the particular priority area.
(1) The application demonstrates that it has experience and a successful record of accomplishment relevant to the specific activities it proposes to accomplish.
(2) The application details the necessary abilities to provide the training and technical assistance on a nationwide basis. Information provided by the applicant should address related achievements and competence of each cooperating or sponsoring organization.
(3) The application fully describes, for example in a resume, the experience and skills of the proposed project director and primary staff showing specific qualifications and professional experiences relevant to the successful implementation of the proposed project.
(4) The application describes how it will involve partners in the Community Services Network in its activities. Where appropriate, application describes how it will interface with other related organizations.
(5) If subcontracts are proposed, the application documents the willingness and capacity of the subcontracting organization(s) to participate as described.
(1) The application documents that the proposed project addresses vital needs related to the program purposes and provides statistics and other data and information in support of its contention.
(2) The application provides current supporting documentation or other testimonies regarding needs from State CSBG Directors, CAAs and local service providers and/or State and Regional organizations of CAAs and other local service providers.
(1) The application describes how the project will assure long-term program and management improvements for State CSBG offices, CAA State and/or regional associations, CAAs and/or other local providers of CSBG services and activities.
(2) The application indicates the types and amounts of public and/or private resources it will mobilize, how those resources will directly benefit the project, and how the project will ultimately benefit low-income individuals and families.
(3) If the applicant proposes a project with a training and technical assistance focus, the application indicates the number of organizations and/or staff that will benefit from those services.
(4) If the applicant proposes a project with a data collection focus, the application describes the mechanism it will use to collect data, how it can assure collections from a significant number of States, and the number of States willing to submit data to the applicant.
(5) If the applicant proposes to develop a symposium series or other policy-related project(s), the application identifies the number and types of beneficiaries.
(6) The application describes methods of securing participant feedback and evaluations of activities.
(1) The resources requested are reasonable and adequate to accomplish the project.
(2) Total costs are reasonable and consistent with anticipated results.
Each application submitted to OCS will be screened to determine whether it was received by the closing date and time.
Applications received by the closing date and time will be screened for completeness and conformity with the following requirements. Only complete applications that meet the requirements listed below will be reviewed and evaluated competitively. Other applications will be returned to the applicants with a notation that they were unacceptable and will not be reviewed.
All applications must comply with the following requirements except as noted:
(a) The application must contain a signed Standard Form 424 Application for Federal Assistance, a Standard Form 424-A Budget Information and Standard Form 424B Assurance—Non-Construction Programs completed according to instructions provided in this Program Announcement. The forms SF-424 and the SF-424B must be signed by an official of the organization applying for the grant who has authority to obligate the organization legally. The applicant's legal name as required on the SF-424 (Item 5) must match that listed as corresponding to the Employer Identification Number (Item 6);
(b) The application must include a project narrative that meets requirements set forth in this announcement.
(c) The application must contain documentation of the applicant's tax-exempt status as indicated in the “Additional Information on Eligibility” section of this announcement.
Applications that pass the initial OCS screening will be reviewed and rated by a panel based on the program elements and review criteria presented in relevant sections of this program announcement.
The review criteria are designed to enable the review panel to assess the quality of a proposed project and determine the likelihood of its success. The criteria are closely related to each other and are considered as a whole in judging the overall quality of an application. The review panel awards points only to applications that are responsive to the program elements and relevant review criteria within the context of this program announcement.
The OCS Director and program staff use the reviewer scores when considering competing applications. Reviewer scores will weigh heavily in funding decisions, but will not be the only factors considered.
Applications generally will be considered in order of the average scores assigned by the review panel. Because other important factors are taken into consideration, highly ranked applications are not guaranteed funding. These other considerations include, for example: the timely and proper completion by the applicant of projects funded with OCS funds granted in the last five (5) years; comments of reviewers and government officials; staff evaluation and input; amount and duration of the grant requested and the proposed project's consistency and harmony with OCS goals and policy; geographic distribution of applications; previous program performance of applicants; compliance with grant terms
Successful and unsuccessful applicants will be notified of the results of this grant competition within 90 days after the due date for receipt of applications. Following approval of the application selected for funding, ACF will mail a written notice of project approval and authority to draw down project funds. The official award document is the Financial Assistance Award that specifies the amount of Federal funds approved for use in the project, the project and budget period for which support is provided and the terms and conditions of the award. The notice of grant award signed by the Grants Officer is the authorizing document.
45 CFR Part 74.
None.
Applicants have the option of omitting from the application copies (not the original) specific salary rates or amounts for individuals specified in the application budget and Social Security Numbers. The copies may include summary salary information.
The Office of Community Services (OCS) within the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) announces that competing applications will be accepted for a new grant pursuant to the Secretary's authority under section 674(b) of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Act, as amended, by the Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services (COATES) Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998, (Pub. L. 105-285).
The proposed grant will fund one national “academy” to provide training in program administration and financial management to CSBG eligible entities. Through such support, OCS will provide the Community Services Network with a national resource to address ROMA Goal 5: “Agencies increase their capacity to achieve results.”
The following definitions apply:
OCS will fund one national “academy” to provide training in program administration and financial management. Through such support, OCS will provide the Community Services Network with a national resource to address ROMA Goal 5: “Agencies increase their capacity to achieve results.”
The successful applicant for this grant must be able to demonstrate a strong and effective history of providing basic program administration and fiscal management training on a local, regional, or national basis to new community action officials or those in “at risk” community action agencies, and for building effective management teams within such agencies. Applicants must demonstrate an understanding of the unique role of community action agencies in coordinating a variety of programs, funding sources, and activities both within and outside the agency to achieve client and community outcomes.
The application must describe proposed course content, logistics, and means to evaluate the effectiveness of “academy” training based on a performance based model (ROMA) in such areas as, but not limited to:
1. Long-range and annual planning, (including needs assessment, board participation and governance, resource acquisition, relationship to other programs/services in the community);
2. Program administration (including resource allocation oversight, record keeping, and reporting);
3. Human resource management (staff recruitment, training, retention);
4. Facilities management;
5. Information systems (design, implementation, control and support); and
6. Program evaluation (including design implementation, reporting and board participation).
The successful applicant for this grant will make available intensive,
An application that exceeds the upper value of the dollar range specified will be considered “non-responsive” and be returned to the applicant without further review.
Community Services Block Grant eligible entities, State Community Action Associations including faith-based organizations, nonprofit organizations having 501(c)(3) status, and nonprofits that do not have 501(c)(3) status.
As prescribed by the Community Services Block Grant Act (Pub. L. 105-285, Section 678(c)(2), eligible applicants are eligible entities (see definitions), organizations, or associations with demonstrated expertise in providing training to individuals and organizations on methods of effectively addressing the needs of low-income families and communities.
Any non-profit organization submitting an application must submit proof of its non-profit status in its application at the time of submission. The non-profit agency can accomplish this by providing a reference to the applicant organization's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in the IRS Code; a copy of a currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate; a statement from a State taxing body, State attorney general, or other appropriate State official certifying that the applicant organization has a non-profit status and that none of the net earnings accrue to any private shareholders or individuals; a certified copy of the organization's certificate of incorporation or similar document that clearly establishes non-profit status; or any of the items referenced above for a State or national parent organization and a statement signed by the parent organization that the applicant organization is a local non-profit affiliate.
Private, non-profit organizations are encouraged to submit with their applications the survey located under “Grant Related Documents and Forms” titled “Survey for Private, Non-Profit Grant Applicants” at
None.
On June 27, 2003, the Office of Management and Budget published in the
Please ensure that your organization has a DUNS number. You may acquire a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line on 1-866-705-5711 or you may request a number on-line at
Office of Community Services Operations Center, ATTN: Dr. Margaret Washnitzer, 1815 Fort Meyer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22209, Telephone: (800) 281-9519.
An original and two copies of the complete application are required. The original and the 2 copies must include all required forms, certifications, assurances, and appendices, be signed by an authorized representative of the applicant organization, have original signatures, and be submitted unbound. Applicants have the option of omitting from the application copies (not the original) specific salary rates or amounts for individuals specified in the application budget and Social Security Numbers. The copies may include summary salary information.
You may submit your application to us in either electronic or paper format. To submit an application electronically, please use the
Please note the following if you plan to submit your application electronically via Grants.gov:
• Electronic submission is voluntary.
• When you enter the Grants. Gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. We strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov.
• To use Grants.gov, you, as the applicant, must have a DUNS Number and register in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR). You should allow a minimum of five days to complete the CCR registration.
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit a grant application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit an application in paper format.
• You may submit all documents electronically, including all information typically included on the SF 424 and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• Your application must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this program announcement.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The Administration for Children and Families will retrieve your application from Grants.gov.
• We may request that you provide original signatures on forms at a later date.
• You may access the electronic application for this program on
Each application must include the following components:
(a) Table of Contents.
(b) Abstract of the Proposed Project—very brief, not to exceed 250 words, that would be suitable for use in an announcement that the application has been selected for a grant award and which identifies the type of project, the target population and the major elements of the work plan.
(c) Completed Standard Form 424—that has been signed by an Official of the organization applying for the grant who has authority to obligate the organization legally.
(d) Standard Form 424A—Budget Information-Non-Construction Programs.
(e) Narrative Budget Justification—for each object class category required under Section B, Standard Form 424A.
(f) Project Narrative—A narrative that addresses issues described in the “Application Review Information” and the “Review and Selection Criteria” sections of this announcement.
Each application should include one signed original application and two additional copies of the same application.
Submit application materials on white 8
Please do not include organizational brochures or other promotional materials, slides, films, clips,
The font size may be no smaller than 12 pitch and the margins must be at least one inch on all sides.
Number all application pages sequentially throughout the package, beginning with the abstract of the proposed project as page number one.
Please present application materials either in loose-leaf notebooks or in folders with pages two-hole punched at the top center and fastened separately with a slide paper fastener.
The application package including sections for the Table of Contents, Project Abstract, Project and Budget Narratives must not exceed 30 pages. The page limitation does not include the following attachments and appendices: Standard Forms for Assurances, Certifications, Disclosures and appendices. The page limitation also does not apply to any supplemental documents as required in this announcement.
Applicants requesting financial assistance for a non-construction project must sign and return Standard Form 424B, Assurances: Non-Construction Programs with their applications.
Applicants must provide a Certification Regarding Lobbying. Prior to receiving an award in excess of $100,000, applicants shall furnish an executed copy of the lobbying certification. Applicants must sign and return the certification with their application
Applicants must make the appropriate certification of their compliance with all Federal statues relating to nondiscrimination. By signing and submitting the applications, applicants are providing the certification and need not mail back a certification form.
Applicants must make the appropriate certification of their compliance with the requirements of the Pro-Children Act of 1994 as outlined in Certification Regarding Environmental Tobacco Smoke. By signing and submitting the applications, applicants are providing the certification and need not mail back a certification form.
(a) The application must contain a signed Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance, a Standard Form 424-A, Budget Information, and signed Standard Form 424-B, Assurance “ Non-Construction Programs, completed according to instructions provided in this Program Announcement. The Forms SF-424 and SF-424B must be signed by an official of the organization applying for the grant who has authority to obligate the organization legally. The applicant's legal name as required on the SF-424 (Item 5) must match that listed as corresponding to the Employer Identification Number (Item 6);
(b) The application must include a project narrative that meets the requirements set forth in this announcement;
(c) The application must contain documentation of the applicant's tax-exempt status as indicated in the “Funding Opportunity Description” section of this announcement;
Private, non-profit organizations are encouraged to submit with their applications the survey located under “Grant Related Documents and Forms” titled “Survey for Private, Non-Profit Grant Applicants.” The forms are located on the web at
It is in the applicant's best interest to ensure that the project description is easy to read, logically developed in accordance with the evaluation criteria and adheres to the page limitation. In addition, applicants should be mindful of the importance of preparing and submitting applications using language, terms, concepts and descriptions that are generally known by the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) network.
The maximum number of pages for supplemental documentation is 10 pages. The supplemental documentation, subject to the 10-page limit, must be numbered and might include brief resumes, position descriptions, proof of non-profit status, news clippings, press releases, etc. Supplemental documentation over the 10-page limit will not be reviewed.
Applicants must include letters of support or agreement, if appropriate or applicable, in reference to the project description. Letters of support are not counted as part of the 30-page project description limit or the 10-page supplemental documentation limit. All applications must comply with the following requirements as noted:
The closing time and date for receipt of applications is 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on June 18, 2004. Mailed or hand carried applications received after 4:30 p.m. on the closing date will be classified as late.
Applications hand carried by applicants, applicant couriers, other representatives of the applicant, or by overnight/express mail couriers shall be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline date, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST), at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services' Operations Center, 1815 North Fort Meyer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22209, between Monday and Friday (excluding federal holidays). This address must appear on the envelope/package containing the application with the note: “Attention: Barbara Ziegler Johnson”. Applicants are cautioned that express/overnight mail services do not always deliver as agreed.
ACF will not send acknowledgements of receipt of application materials.
Private-non-profit organizations may submit with their applications the additional survey located under “Grant Related Documents and Forms” titled “Survey for Private, Non-Profit Grant Applicants”.
This program is covered under Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” and 45 CFR Part 100, “Intergovernmental Review of Department of Health and Human Services Programs and Activities.” Under the Order, States may design their own processes for reviewing and commenting on proposed Federal assistance under covered programs. As of October 1, 2003, the following jurisdictions have elected not to participate in the Executive Order process. Applicants from these jurisdictions or for projects administered by federally-recognized Indian Tribes need take no action in regard to E.O. 12372:
All States and Territories except Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming and Palau have elected to participate in the Executive Order process and have established Single Points of Contact (SPOCs). Applicants from these twenty-seven jurisdictions need take no action.
Although the jurisdictions listed above no longer participate in the process, entities which have met the eligibility requirements of the program are still eligible to apply for a grant even if a State, Territory, Commonwealth, etc. does not have a SPOC. All remaining jurisdictions participate in the Executive Order process and have established SPOCs. Applicants from participating jurisdictions should contact their SPOCs as soon as possible to alert them of the prospective applications and receive instructions. Applicants must submit any required material to the SPOCs as soon as possible so that the program office can obtain and review SPOC comments as part of the award process. The applicant must submit all required materials, if any, to the SPOC and indicate the date of this submittal (or the date of contact if no submittal is required) on the Standard Form 424, item 16a. Under 45 CFR 100.8(a)(2), a SPOC has 60 days from the application deadline to comment on proposed new or competing continuation awards.
SPOCs are encouraged to eliminate the submission of routine endorsements as official recommendations. Additionally, SPOCs are requested to clearly differentiate between mere advisory comments and those official State process recommendations which may trigger the “accommodate or explain” rule.
When comments are submitted directly to ACF, they should be addressed to: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Division of Discretionary Grants, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Mail Stop 6C-462, Washington, DC 20447.
A list of the Single Points of Contact for each State and Territory is included with the application materials for this announcement.
OCS will not fund any project where the role of the applicant is primarily to serve as a conduit for funds to organizations other than the applicant. The applicant must have a substantive role in the implementation of the project for which funding is requested. This prohibition does not bar the making of sub-grants or sub-contracting for specific services or activities that are needed to conduct the project.
Each application may include only one proposed project.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, the Department is required to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval of any reporting and record keeping requirements in regulations including program announcements. This program announcement does not contain information collection requirements beyond those approved for ACF grant applications under the Program Narrative Statement by OMB Approval Number 0970-0139.
The project description is approved under OMB Control Number 0970-0139. 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.
Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 25 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed and reviewing the collection of information.
The following are instructions and guidelines on how to prepare the “project summary/abstract” and “Full Project Description” sections of the application. Under the evaluation criteria section, note that each criterion is preceded by the generic evaluation requirement under the ACF Uniform Project Description (UPD). The UPD was approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 0970-0139. The generic UPD requirement is followed by the evaluation criterion specific to the Community Services Block Grant legislation.
The project description provides a major means by which an application is evaluated and ranked to compete with other applications for available assistance. The project description should be concise and complete and should address the activity for which Federal funds are being requested. Supporting documents should be included where they can present information clearly and succinctly. In preparing your project description, all information requested through each specific evaluation criteria should be provided. Awarding offices use this and other information in making their funding recommendations. It is important, therefore, that this information be included in the application.
Applicants required to submit a full project description shall prepare the project description statement in accordance with the following instructions and the specified evaluation criteria. The instructions give a broad overview of what your project description should include while the evaluation criteria expands and clarifies more program-specific information that is needed.
Provide a summary of the project description (a page or less) with reference to the funding request.
Clearly identify the physical, economic, social, financial,
Identify the results and benefits to be derived. For example, describe the population to be served by the program and the number of new jobs that will be targeted to the target population. Explain how the project will reach the targeted population, how it will benefit participants including how it will support individuals to become more economically self-sufficient.
Outline a plan of action which describes the scope and detail of how the proposed work will be accomplished. Account for all functions or activities identified in the application. Cite factors which might accelerate or decelerate the work and state your reason for taking the proposed approach rather than others. Describe any unusual features of the project such as design or technological innovations, reductions in cost or time, or extraordinary social and community involvement.
Provide quantitative monthly or quarterly projections of the accomplishments to be achieved for each function or activity in such terms as the number of people to be served and the number of activities accomplished. Account for all functions or activities identified in the application. Cite factors that might accelerate or decelerate the work and state your reasons for taking the proposed approach rather than others. Describe any unusual features of the project such as design or technical innovations, reductions in cost or time or extraordinary social and community involvement.
Provide quantitative monthly or quarterly projections of the accomplishments to be achieved for each function or activity in, for example such terms as the “number of people served.” When accomplishments cannot be quantified by activity or function, list them in chronological order to show the schedule of accomplishments and their target dates.
If any data is to be collected, maintained, and/or disseminated, clearance may be required from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This clearance pertains to any “collection of information that is conducted or sponsored by ACF.”
List organizations, cooperating entities, consultants, or other key individuals who will work on the project along with a short description of the nature of their effort or contribution.
Provide a narrative addressing how the results of the project and the conduct of the project will be evaluated. In addressing the evaluation of results, state how you will determine the extent to which the project has achieved its stated objectives and the extent to which the accomplishment of objectives can be attributed to the project. Discuss the criteria to be used to evaluate results, and explain the methodology that will be used to determine if the needs identified and discussed are being met and if the project results and benefits are being achieved. With respect to the conduct of the project, define the procedures to be employed to determine whether the project is being conducted in a manner consistent with the work plan presented and discuss the impact of the project's various activities on the project's effectiveness.
Provide information on the applicant organization(s) and cooperating partners such as organizational charts, financial statements, audit reports or statements from CPAs/Licensed Public Accountants, Employer Identification Numbers, names of bond carriers, contact persons and telephone numbers, child care licenses and other documentation of professional accreditation, information on compliance with Federal/State/local government standards, documentation of experience in the program area, and other pertinent information. Any non-profit organization submitting an application must submit proof of its non-profit status in its application at the time of submission.
The non-profit agency can accomplish this by providing a copy of the applicant's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code, or by providing a copy of the currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate, or by providing a copy of the articles of incorporation bearing the seal of the State in which the corporation or association is domiciled.
Provide line item detail and detailed calculations for each budget object class identified on the Budget Information form. Detailed calculations must include estimation methods, quantities, unit costs, and other similar quantitative detail sufficient for the calculation to be duplicated. The detailed budget must also include a breakout by the funding sources identified in Block 15 of the SF-424.
Provide a narrative budget justification that describes how the categorical costs are derived. Discuss the necessity, reasonableness, and allocability of the proposed costs.
(1) The work program is results-oriented, approximately related to the legislative mandate and specifically related to the priority area under which funds are being requested. Application addresses the following: specific outcomes to be achieved; performance targets that the project is committed to achieving, including a discussion of and how the project will verify the achievement of these targets; critical milestones which must be achieved if results are to be gained; organizational support, the level of support from the applicant organization; past performance in similar work; and specific resources contributed to the project that are critical to success.
(2) The application defines the comprehensive nature of the project and methods that will be used to ensure that the results can be used to address a statewide or nationwide project as defined by the description of the particular priority area.
(1) The application demonstrates that it has experience and a successful record of accomplishment relevant to the specific activities it proposes to accomplish.
(2) If the application proposes to provide training and technical assistance, it details its abilities to
(3) The application fully describes, for example in a resume, the experience and skills of the proposed project director and primary staff showing specific qualifications and professional experiences relevant to the successful implementation of the proposed project.
(4) The application describes how it will involve partners in the Community Services Network in its activities. Where appropriate, applicant describes how it will interface with other related organizations.
(5) If subcontracts are proposed, the application documents the willingness and capacity of the subcontracting organization(s) to participate as described.
(1) The application documents that the proposed project addresses vital needs related to the program purposes and provides statistics and other data and information in support of its contention.
(2) The application provides current supporting documentation or other testimonies regarding needs from State CSBG Directors, CAAs and local service providers and/or State and Regional organizations of CAAs and other local service providers.
(1) The application describes how the project will assure long-term program and management improvements for State CSBG offices, CAA State and/or regional associations, CAAs and/or other local providers of CSBG services and activities.
(2) The application indicates the types and amounts of public and/or private resources it will mobilize, how those resources will directly benefit the project, and how the project will ultimately benefit low-income individuals and families.
(3) If the application proposes a project with a training and technical assistance focus, the application indicates the number of organizations and/or staff that will benefit from those services.
(4) If the application proposes a project with data collection focus, the application describes the mechanism it will use to collect data, how it can assure collections from a significant number of States, and the number of States willing to submit data to the applicant.
(5) If the application proposes to develop a symposium series or other policy-related project(s), the application identifies the number and types of beneficiaries.
(6) The application describes methods of securing participant feedback and evaluations of activities.
(1) The resources requested are reasonable and adequate to accomplish the project.
(2) Total costs are reasonable and consistent with anticipated results.
Each application submitted to OCS will be screened to determine whether it was received by the closing date and time.
Applications received by the closing date and time will be screened for completeness and conformity with the following requirements. Only complete applications that meet the requirements listed below will be reviewed and evaluated competitively. Other applications will be returned to the applicants with a notation that they were unacceptable and will not be reviewed.
All applications must comply with the following requirements except as noted:
Applications that pass the initial OCS screening will be reviewed and rated by a panel based on the program elements and review criteria presented in relevant sections of this program announcement. The review criteria are designed to enable the review panel to assess the quality of a proposed project and determine the likelihood of its success. The criteria are closely related to each other and are considered as a whole in judging the overall quality of an application. The review panel awards points only to applications that are responsive to the program elements and relevant review criteria within the context of this program announcement.
The OCS Director and program staff use the reviewer scores when considering competing applications. Reviewer scores will weigh heavily in funding decisions, but will not be the only factors considered.
Applications generally will be considered in order of the average scores assigned by the review panel. Because other important factors are taken into consideration, highly ranked applications are not guaranteed funding. These other considerations include, for example: the timely and proper completion by the applicant of projects funded with OCS funds granted in the last five (5) years; comments of reviewers and government officials; staff evaluation and input; amount and duration of the grant requested and the proposed project's consistency and harmony with OCS goals and policy; geographic distribution of applications; previous program performance of applicants; compliance with grant terms under previous HHS grants, including the actual dedication to program of mobilized resources as set forth in project applications; audit reports; investigative reports; and applicant's progress in resolving any final audit disallowance on previous OCS or other Federal agency grants.
Following approval of the application selected for funding, ACF will mail a written notice of project approval and authority to draw down project funds. The official award document is the Financial Assistance Award that specifies the amount of Federal funds approved for use in the project, the project and budget period for which support is provided and the terms and conditions of the award. The Financial Assistance Award is signed and issued via postal mail by an authorized Grants Officer.
ACF will notify unsuccessful applicants after the award is issued to the successful applicant.
Grantees are subject to the requirements in 45 CFR part 74 (non-governmental) or 45 CFR part 92 (governmental).
All grantees are required to submit semi-annual program reports and semi-annual expenditure reports (SF-269) with final reports due 90 days after the project end date. A suggested format for the program report will be sent to all grantees after the awards are made.
Additional information about this program and its purpose can be located on the following Web site:
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services.
The due date for receipt of applications is June 18, 2004.
The Office of Community Services (OCS) within the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) announces that competing applications will be accepted for a new grant pursuant to the Secretary's authority under section 674(b) of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Act, as amended, by the Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services (COATES) Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998, (Pub. L. 105-285).
The proposed grant will support one national project to provide coordinated, timely peer-to-peer technical assistance and crisis aversion intervention for CSBG eligible entities which have been identified as being “at risk” because they are experiencing programmatic, administrative, board, and/or fiscal management problems that, without remediation, may jeopardize their ability to address the antipoverty needs of low-income families and their community. This grant will be in support of National Community Action Goal 5 (“Agencies Increase their Capacity to Achieve Results”).
The following definitions apply:
Community Services Block Grant eligible entities, State Community Action Associations including faith-based organizations, nonprofit organizations having 501(c)(3) status, and nonprofits that do not have 501(c)(3) status.
As prescribed by the Community Services Block Grant Act (Pub. L. 105-285, section 678(c)(2), eligible applicants are eligible entities (
Any non-profit organization submitting an application must submit proof of its non-profit status in its application at the time of submission. The non-profit agency can accomplish this by providing:
(a) A reference to the applicant organization's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in the IRS Code.
(b) A copy of a currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate.
(c) A statement from a State taxing body, State attorney general, or other appropriate State official certifying that the applicant organization has a non-profit status and that none of the net earnings accrue to any private shareholders or individuals.
(d) A certified copy of the organization's certificate of incorporation or similar document that clearly establishes non-profit status
(e) Or any of the items referenced above for a State or national parent organization and a statement signed by the parent organization that the applicant organization is a local non-profit affiliate.
Private, non-profit organizations are encouraged to submit with their applications the survey located under “Grant Related Documents and Forms” titled “Survey for Private, Non-Profit Grant Applicants” at
None.
On June 27, 2003, the Office of Management and Budget published in the
Please ensure that your organization has a DUNS number. You may acquire a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line on 1-866-705-5711 or you may request a number on-line at
Office of Community Services Operations Center, Attn: Dr. Margaret Washnitzer, 1815 Fort Meyer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22209: telephone: (800) 281-9519.
An original and two copies of the complete application are required. The original and the 2 copies must include all required forms, certifications, assurances, and appendices, be signed by an authorized representative of the applicant organization, have original signatures, and be submitted unbound. Applicants have the option of omitting from the application copies (not the original) specific salary rates or amounts for individuals specified in the application budget and Social Security Numbers. The copies may include summary salary information.
You may submit your application to us in either electronic or paper format. To submit an application electronically, please use the
Please note the following if you plan to submit your application electronically via Grants.gov:
• Electronic submission is voluntary.
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. We strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov.
• To use Grants.gov, you, as the applicant, must have a DUNS Number and register in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR). You should allow a minimum of five days to complete the CCR registration.
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit a grant application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit an application in paper format.
• You may submit all documents electronically, including all information typically included on the SF 424 and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• Your application must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this program announcement.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The Administration for Children and Families will retrieve your application from Grants.gov.
• We may request that you provide original signatures on forms at a later date.
• You may access the electronic application for this program on
Each application must include the following components:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Each application should include one signed original application and two additional copies of the same application.
Submit application materials on white 8
Please do not include organizational brochures or other promotional materials, slides, films, clips, etc.
The font size may be no smaller than 12 pitch and the margins must be at least one inch on all sides.
Number all application pages sequentially throughout the package, beginning with the abstract of the proposed project as page number one.
Please present application materials either in loose-leaf notebooks or in folders with pages two-hole punched at the top center and fastened separately with a slide paper fastener.
The application package including sections for the Table of Contents, Project Abstract, Project and Budget Narratives must not exceed 30 pages. The page limitation does not include the following attachments and appendices: Standard Forms for Assurances, Certifications, Disclosures and appendices. The page limitation also does not apply to any supplemental documents as required in this announcement.
Applicants requesting financial assistance for a non-construction project must sign and return Standard Form 424B, Assurances: Non-Construction Programs with their applications.
Applicants must provide a Certification Regarding Lobbying. Prior to receiving an award in excess of $100,000, applicants shall furnish an executed copy of the lobbying certification. Applicants must sign and return the certification with their application.
Applicants must make the appropriate certification of their compliance with all Federal statues relating to nondiscrimination. By signing and submitting the applications, applicants are providing the certification and need not mail back a certification form.
Applicants must make the appropriate certification of their compliance with the requirements of the Pro-Children Act of 1994 as outlined in Certification Regarding Environmental Tobacco Smoke. By signing and submitting the applications, applicants are providing the certification and need not mail back a certification form.
(a) The application must contain a signed Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance, a Standard Form 424-A, Budget Information, and signed Standard From 424-B, Assurance—Non-Construction Programs, completed according to instructions provided in this Program Announcement. The Forms SF-424 and SF-424B must be signed by an official of the organization applying for the grant who has authority to obligate the organization legally. The applicant's legal name as required on the SF-424 (Item 5) must match that listed as corresponding to the Employer Identification Number (Item 6);
(b) The application must include a project narrative that meets the requirements set forth in this announcement;
(c) The application must contain documentation of the applicant's tax-
Private, non-profit organizations are encouraged to submit with their applications the survey located under “Grant Related Documents and Forms” titled “Survey for Private, Non-Profit Grant Applicants.” The forms are located on the Web at
It is in the applicant's best interest to ensure that the project description is easy to read, logically developed in accordance with the evaluation criteria and adheres to the page limitation. In addition, applicants should be mindful of the importance of preparing and submitting applications using language, terms, concepts and descriptions that are generally known by the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) network.
The maximum number of pages for supplemental documentation is 10 pages. The supplemental documentation, subject to the 10-page limit, must be numbered and might include brief resumes, position descriptions, proof of non-profit status, news clippings, press releases, etc. Supplemental documentation over the 10-page limit will not be reviewed.
Applicants must include letters of support or agreement, if appropriate or applicable, in reference to the project description. Letters of support are not counted as part of the 30-page project description limit or the 10-page supplemental documentation limit. All applications must comply with the following requirements as noted:
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed and reviewing the collection information.
The closing time and date for receipt of applications is 4:30 p.m. eastern standard time (e.s.t.) on June 18, 2004. Mailed or hand carried applications received after 4:30 p.m. on the closing date will be classified as late.
Applications hand carried by applicants, applicant couriers, other representatives of the applicant, or by overnight/express mail couriers shall be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline date, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., eastern standard time (e.s.t.), at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services' Operations Center, 1815 North Fort Meyer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22209, between Monday and Friday (excluding Federal holidays). This address must appear on the envelope/package containing the application with the note: “Attention: Barbara Ziegler Johnson”. Applicants are cautioned that express/overnight mail services do not always deliver as agreed.
ACF will not send acknowledgements of receipt of application materials.
This program is covered under Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” and 45 CFR part 100, “Intergovernmental Review of Department of Health and Human Services Programs and Activities.” Under the Order, States may design their own processes for reviewing and commenting on proposed Federal assistance under covered programs. As of October 1, 2003, the following jurisdictions have elected not to participate in the Executive Order process. Applicants from these jurisdictions or for projects administered by federally-recognized Indian tribes need take no action in regard to E.O. 12372:
All States and territories except Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming and Palau have elected to participate in the Executive Order process and have established Single Points of Contact (SPOCs). Applicants from these 27 jurisdictions need take no action.
Although the jurisdictions listed above no longer participate in the process, entities which have met the eligibility requirements of the program are still eligible to apply for a grant even if a State, territory, commonwealth, etc. does not have a SPOC. All remaining jurisdictions participate in the Executive Order process and have established SPOCs. Applicants from participating jurisdictions should contact their SPOCs as soon as possible to alert them of the prospective applications and receive instructions. Applicants must submit any required material to the SPOCs as soon as possible so that the program office can obtain and review SPOC comments as part of the award process. The applicant must submit all required materials, if any, to the SPOC and indicate the date of this submittal (or the date of contact if no submittal is required) on the Standard Form 424, item 16a. Under 45 CFR 100.8(a)(2), a SPOC has 60 days from the application deadline to comment on proposed new or competing continuation awards.
SPOCs are encouraged to eliminate the submission of routine endorsements as official recommendations. Additionally, SPOCs are requested to clearly differentiate between mere advisory comments and those official State process recommendations which may trigger the “accommodate or explain” rule.
When comments are submitted directly to ACF, they should be addressed to: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Division of Discretionary Grants, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Mail Stop 6C-462, Washington, DC 20447.
A list of the Single Points of Contact for each State and territory is included with the application materials for this announcement.
OCS will not fund any project where the role of the applicant is primarily to serve as a conduit for funds to organizations other than the applicant. The applicant must have a substantive role in the implementation of the project for which funding is requested. This prohibition does not bar the making of sub-grants or sub-contracting for specific services or activities that are needed to conduct the project.
Each application may include only one proposed project.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, the Department is required to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval of any reporting and recordkeeping requirements in regulations including program announcements. This program announcement does not contain information collection requirements beyond those approved for ACF grant applications under the Program Narrative Statement by OMB Approval Number 0970-0139.
The project description is approved under OMB Control No. 0970-0139. 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.
Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 25 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed and reviewing the collection of information.
The following are instructions and guidelines on how to prepare the “project summary/abstract” and “Full Project Description” sections of the application. Under the evaluation criteria section, note that each criterion is preceded by the generic evaluation requirement under the ACF Uniform Project Description (UPD). The UPD was approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), control Number 0970-0139, expiration date 12/31/2003. The generic UPD requirement is followed by the evaluation criterion specific to the Community Services Block Grant legislation.
The project description provides a major means by which an application is evaluated and ranked to compete with other applications for available assistance. The project description should be concise and complete and should address the activity for which Federal funds are being requested. Supporting documents should be included where they can present information clearly and succinctly. In preparing your project description, all information requested through each specific evaluation criteria should be provided. Awarding offices use this and other information in making their funding recommendations. It is important, therefore, that this information be included in the application.
Applicants required to submit a full project description shall prepare the project description statement in accordance with the following instructions and the specified evaluation criteria. The instructions give a broad overview of what your project description should include while the evaluation criteria expands and clarifies more program-specific information that is needed.
Provide a summary of the project description (a page or less) with reference to the funding request.
Clearly identify the physical, economic, social, financial, institutional, and/or other problem(s) requiring a solution. The need for assistance must be demonstrated and the principal and subordinate objectives of the project must be clearly stated; supporting documentation, such as letters of support and testimonials from concerned interests other than the applicant, may be included. Any relevant data based on planning studies should be included or referred to in the endnotes/footnotes. Incorporate demographic data and participant/beneficiary information, as needed. In developing the project description, the applicant may volunteer or be requested to provide information on the total range of projects currently being conducted and supported (or to be initiated), some of which may be outside the scope of the program announcement.
Identify the results and benefits to be derived. For example, describe the population to be served by the program and the number of new jobs that will be targeted to the target population. Explain how the project will reach the targeted population, how it will benefit participants including how it will support individuals to become more economically self-sufficient.
Outline a plan of action which describes the scope and detail of how the proposed work will be accomplished. Account for all functions or activities identified in the application. Cite factors which might accelerate or decelerate the work and state your reason for taking the proposed approach rather than others. Describe any unusual features of the project such as design or technological innovations, reductions in cost or time, or extraordinary social and community involvement.
Provide quantitative monthly or quarterly projections of the accomplishments to be achieved for each function or activity in such terms as the number of people to be served and the number of activities accomplished. Account for all functions or activities identified in the application. Cite factors that might accelerate or decelerate the work and state your reasons for taking the proposed approach rather than others. Describe any unusual features of the project such as design or technical innovations, reductions in cost or time or extraordinary social and community involvement.
Provide quantitative monthly or quarterly projections of the accomplishments to be achieved for each function or activity in, for example such terms as the “number of people served.” When accomplishments cannot be quantified by activity or function, list them in chronological order to show the schedule of accomplishments and their target dates.
If any data is to be collected, maintained, and/or disseminated, clearance may be required from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This clearance pertains to any “collection of information that is conducted or sponsored by ACF.”
List organizations, cooperating entities, consultants, or other key individuals who will work on the project along with a short description of the nature of their effort or contribution.
Provide a narrative addressing how the results of the project and the conduct of the project will be evaluated. In addressing the evaluation of results, state how you will determine the extent to which the project has achieved its stated objectives and the extent to which the accomplishment of objectives can be attributed to the project. Discuss the criteria to be used to evaluate results, and explain the methodology that will be used to determine if the needs identified and discussed are being met and if the project results and benefits are being achieved. With respect to the conduct of the project, define the procedures to be employed to determine whether the project is being conducted in a manner consistent with the work plan presented and discuss the impact of the project's various activities on the project's effectiveness.
Provide information on the applicant organization(s) and cooperating partners such as organizational charts, financial statements, audit reports or statements from CPAs/Licensed Public Accountants, Employer Identification Numbers, names of bond carriers, contact persons and telephone numbers, child care licenses and other documentation of professional accreditation, information on compliance with Federal/State/local government standards, documentation of experience in the program area, and other pertinent information. Any non-profit organization submitting an application must submit proof of its non-profit status in its application at the time of submission.
The non-profit agency can accomplish this by providing a copy of the applicant's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code, or by providing a copy of the currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate, or by providing a copy of the articles of incorporation bearing the seal of the State in which the corporation or association is domiciled.
Provide line item detail and detailed calculations for each budget object class identified on the Budget Information form. Detailed calculations must include estimation methods, quantities, unit costs, and other similar quantitative detail sufficient for the calculation to be duplicated. The detailed budget must also include a breakout by the funding sources identified in Block 15 of the SF-424.
Provide a narrative budget justification that describes how the categorical costs are derived. Discuss the necessity, reasonableness, and allocability of the proposed costs.
(1) The work program is results-oriented, approximately related to the legislative mandate and specifically related to the priority area under which funds are being requested. Application addresses the following: Specific outcomes to be achieved; performance targets that the project is committed to achieving, including a discussion of and how the project will verify the achievement of these targets; critical milestones which must be achieved if results are to be gained; organizational support, the level of support from the applicant organization; past performance in similar work; and specific resources contributed to the project that are critical to success.
(2) The application defines the comprehensive nature of the project and methods that will be used to ensure that the results can be used to address a statewide or nationwide project as defined by the description of the particular priority area.
(1) The application demonstrates that it has experience and a successful record of accomplishment relevant to the specific activities it proposes to accomplish.
(2) If the application proposes to provide training and technical assistance, it details its abilities to provide those services on a nationwide basis. If applicable, information provided by the application also addresses related achievements and competence of each cooperating or sponsoring organization.
(3) The application fully describes, for example in a resume, the experience and skills of the proposed project director and primary staff showing specific qualifications and professional experiences relevant to the successful implementation of the proposed project.
(4) The application describes how it will involve partners in the Community Services Network in its activities. Where appropriate, applicant describes how it will interface with other related organizations.
(5) If subcontracts are proposed, the application documents the willingness and capacity of the subcontracting organization(s) to participate as described.
(1) The application documents that the proposed project addresses vital needs related to the program purposes and provides statistics and other data and information in support of its contention.
(2) The application provides current supporting documentation or other testimonies regarding needs from State CSBG Directors, CAAs and local service providers and/or State and Regional organizations of CAAs and other local service providers.
(1) The application describes how the project will assure long-term program and management improvements for State CSBG offices, CAA State and/or regional associations, CAAs and/or other local providers of CSBG services and activities.
(2) The application indicates the types and amounts of public and/or private resources it will mobilize, how those resources will directly benefit the project, and how the project will ultimately benefit low-income individuals and families.
(3) If the application proposes a project with a training and technical assistance focus, the applicant indicates the number of organizations and/or staff that will benefit from those services.
(4) If the application proposes a project with data collection focus, applicant describes the mechanism it will use to collect data, how it can assure collections from a significant number of States, and the number of States willing to submit data to the applicant.
(5) If the application proposes to develop a symposium series or other policy-related project(s), the applicant identifies the number and types of beneficiaries.
(6) The application describes methods of securing participant feedback and evaluations of activities.
(1) The resources requested are reasonable and adequate to accomplish the project.
(2) Total costs are reasonable and consistent with anticipated results.
Each application submitted to OCS will be screened to determine whether it was received by the closing date and time.
Applications received by the closing date and time will be screened for completeness and conformity with the following requirements. Only complete applications that meet the requirements listed below will be reviewed and evaluated competitively. Other applications will be returned to the applicants with a notation that they were unacceptable and will not be reviewed.
All applications must comply with the following requirements except as noted:
Applications that pass the initial OCS screening will be reviewed and rated by a panel based on the program elements and review criteria presented in relevant sections of this program announcement. The review criteria are designed to enable the review panel to assess the quality of a proposed project and determine the likelihood of its success. The criteria are closely related to each other and are considered as a whole in judging the overall quality of an application. The review panel awards points only to applications that are responsive to the program elements and relevant review criteria within the context of this program announcement.
The OCS Director and program staff use the reviewer scores when considering competing applications. Reviewer scores will weigh heavily in funding decisions, but will not be the only factors considered.
Applications generally will be considered in order of the average scores assigned by the review panel. Because other important factors are taken into consideration, highly ranked applications are not guaranteed funding. These other considerations include, for example: The timely and proper completion by the applicant of projects funded with OCS funds granted in the last five (5) years; comments of reviewers and government officials; staff evaluation and input; amount and duration of the grant requested and the proposed project's consistency and harmony with OCS goals and policy; geographic distribution of applications; previous program performance of applicants; compliance with grant terms under previous HHS grants, including the actual dedication to program of mobilized resources as set forth in project applications; audit reports; investigative reports; and applicant's progress in resolving any final audit disallowance on previous OCS or other Federal agency grants.
Following approval of the application selected for funding, ACF will mail a written notice of project approval and authority to draw down project funds. The official award document is the Financial Assistance Award signed and issued by an authorized Grants Officer which specifies the amount of Federal funds approved for use in the project, the project and budget period for which support is provided and the terms and conditions of the award.
ACF will notify unsuccessful applicants after the award is issued to the successful applicant.
Grantees are subject to the requirements in 45 CFR part 74 (non-governmental) or 45 CFR part 92 (governmental).
All grantees are required to submit semi-annual program reports with the final report due 90 days after the project end date. Grantees are also required to submit semi-annual expenditure reports using the required financial standard form (SF-269) with the final report due 90 days after project end date. A suggested format for the program report will be sent to all grantees after the awards are made.
Barbara Ziegler Johnson, Team Leader, Office of Grants Management, Division of Discretionary Grants, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services Operations Center, 1815 Fort Meyer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22209; e-mail:
Additional information about this program and its purpose can be located on the following Web site:
The Office of Community Services (OCS) within the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) announces that competing applications will be accepted for a new grant pursuant to the Secretary's authority under section 674(b) of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Act, as amended, by the Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services (COATES) Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998, (Pub. L. 105-285).
The proposed grant will fund up to three State CSBG Lead Agencies and/or State Community Action Associations to develop and implement coordinated community planning, funding, and service delivery strategies that utilize
The following definitions apply:
The Director of the Office of Community Services has set as an agency priority the expanded use of technology to improve community planning, anti-poverty efforts, and agency accountability.
In support of this priority, OCS will fund up to three State-level cross-program collaborations that use technology to promote coordinated program planning, local agency funding, service delivery, information collection and reporting, to support and achieve better family and community outcomes.
OCS is aware of a number of State governments that are in the process of using CSBG-based ROMA concepts and tools as the basis for moving toward statewide human service coordination and accountability. OCS seeks to encourage this trend, hasten readiness, and build additional capacity among States by underwriting the development, testing and installation of information collection and reporting systems in support of these collaboration initiatives.
Successful State applicants for an Innovative Technology Collaboration grant will include in their applications:
1. A statement of goals for the proposed State collaboration, with particular reference to the national community action goals and performance measures;
2. A list of State agencies and programs participating in the collaboration;
3. A letter of commitment from the appropriate State agency official, preferably the Governor of the State, that has jurisdiction and authority over the agencies and programs listed under Item 2;
4. A plan and schedule for establishing and implementing coordinated community service planning, program funding, service delivery, local partnerships, and evaluation at the State and local levels;
5. A description of the information systems and technology needed to carry out the planned statewide program collaboration and the plan to develop or acquire, test, and install necessary systems;
6. A detailed budget for the innovative project, indicating the allocation of costs to this grant and other sources of support;
7. A “catalogue” of the family, community and agency improvement outcomes to be used by the collaboration to measure individual and coordinated program success.
Community Services Block Grant eligible entities, State Community Action Associations including faith-based organizations, nonprofit organizations having 501(c)(3) status, and nonprofits that do not have 501(c)(3) status.
As prescribed by the Community Services Block Grant Act (Public Law 105-285, Section 678(c)(2), eligible applicants are eligible entities (see definitions), organizations, or associations with demonstrated expertise in providing training to individuals and organizations on methods of effectively addressing the needs of low-income families and communities.
Any non-profit organization submitting an application must submit proof of its non-profit status in its application at the time of submission. The non-profit agency can accomplish this by providing:
Private, non-profit organizations are encouraged to submit with their applications the survey located under “Grant Related Documents and Forms” titled “Survey for Private, Non-Profit Grant Applicants” at
Priority will be given to joint applications from State CSBG Lead Agencies and State Community Action Associations.
None.
On June 27, 2003, the Office of Management and Budget published in the
Please ensure that your organization has a DUNS number. You may acquire a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line on 1-866-705-5711 or you may request a number on-line at
An original and two copies of the complete application are required. The original and the 2 copies must include all required forms, certifications, assurances, and appendices, be signed by an authorized representative of the applicant organization, have original signatures, and be submitted unbound. Applicants have the option of omitting from the application copies (not the original) specific salary rates or amounts for individuals specified in the application budget and Social Security Numbers. The copies may include summary salary information.
You may submit your application to us in either electronic or paper format. To submit an application electronically, please use the
Please note the following if you plan to submit your application electronically via Grants.gov:
• Electronic submission is voluntary.
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. We strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov.
• To use Grants.gov, you, as the applicant, must have a DUNS Number and register in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR). You should allow a minimum of five days to complete the CCR registration.
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit a grant application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit an application in paper format.
• You may submit all documents electronically, including all information typically included on the SF 424 and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• Your application must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this program announcement.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The Administration for Children and Families will retrieve your application from Grants.gov.
• We may request that you provide original signatures on forms at a later date.
• You may access the electronic application for this program on
Each application must include the following components:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Each application should include one signed original application and two additional copies of the same application.
Submit application materials on white 8
Please do not include organizational brochures or other promotional materials, slides, films, clips, etc.
The font size may be no smaller than 12 pitch and the margins must be at least one inch on all sides.
Number all application pages sequentially throughout the package, beginning with the abstract of the proposed project as page number one.
Please present application materials either in loose-leaf notebooks or in folders with pages two-hole punched at the top center and fastened separately with a slide paper fastener.
The application package including sections for the Table of Contents, Project Abstract, Project and Budget Narratives must not exceed 30 pages. The page limitation does not include the following attachments and appendices: Standard Forms for Assurances, Certifications, Disclosures and appendices. The page limitation also does not apply to any supplemental documents as required in this announcement.
Applicants requesting financial assistance for a non-construction project must sign and return Standard Form 424B, Assurances: Non-Construction Programs with their applications.
Applicants must provide a Certification Regarding Lobbying. Prior to receiving an award in excess of $100,000, applicants shall furnish an executed copy of the lobbying certification. Applicants must sign and return the certification with their application.
Applicants must make the appropriate certification of their compliance with all Federal statutes relating to nondiscrimination. By signing and submitting the applications, applicants are providing the certification and need not mail back a certification form.
Applicants must make the appropriate certification of their compliance with the requirements of the Pro-Children Act of 1994 as outlined in Certification Regarding Environmental Tobacco Smoke. By signing and submitting the applications, applicants are providing the certification and need not mail back a certification form.
(a) The application must contain a signed Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance, a Standard Form 424-A, Budget Information, and signed Standard From 424-B, Assurance—Non-Construction Programs, completed according to instructions provided in this Program Announcement. The Forms SF-424 and SF-424B must be signed by an official of the organization applying for the grant who has authority to obligate the organization legally. The applicant's legal name as required on the SF-424 (Item 5) must match that listed as corresponding to the Employer Identification Number (Item 6);
(b) The application must include a project narrative that meets the requirements set forth in this announcement;
(c) The application must contain documentation of the applicant's tax-exempt status as indicated in the “Funding Opportunity Description” section of this announcement; Private, non-profit organizations are encouraged to submit with their applications the survey located under “Grant Related Documents and Forms” titled “Survey for Private, Non-Profit Grant
It is in the applicant's best interest to ensure that the project description is easy to read, logically developed in accordance with the evaluation criteria and adheres to the page limitation. In addition, applicants should be mindful of the importance of preparing and submitting applications using language, terms, concepts and descriptions that are generally known by the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) network.
The maximum number of pages for supplemental documentation is 10 pages. The supplemental documentation, subject to the 10-page limit, must be numbered and might include brief resumes, position descriptions, proof of non-profit status, news clippings, press releases, etc. Supplemental documentation over the 10-page limit will not be reviewed.
Applicants must include letters of support or agreement, if appropriate or applicable, in reference to the project description. Letters of support are not counted as part of the 30-page project description limit or the 10-page supplemental documentation limit. All applications must comply with the following requirements as noted:
The closing time and date for receipt of applications is 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on June 18, 2004. Mailed or hand carried applications received after 4:30 p.m. on the closing date will be classified as late.
Applications hand carried by applicants, applicant couriers, other representatives of the applicant, or by overnight/express mail couriers shall be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline date, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST), at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services' Operations Center, 1815 North Fort Meyer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22209, between Monday and Friday (excluding federal holidays). This address must appear on the envelope/package containing the application with the note: “Attention: Barbara Ziegler Johnson”. Applicants are cautioned that express/overnight mail services do not always deliver as agreed.
ACF will not send acknowledgements of receipt of application materials.
This program is covered under Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” and 45 CFR Part 100, “Intergovernmental Review of Department of Health and Human Services Programs and Activities.” Under the Order, States may design their own processes for reviewing and commenting on proposed Federal assistance under covered programs. As of October 1, 2003, the following jurisdictions have elected not to participate in the Executive Order process. Applicants from these jurisdictions or for projects administered by federally-recognized Indian Tribes need take no action in regard to E.O. 12372:
All States and Territories except Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming and Palau have elected to participate in the Executive Order process and have established Single Points of Contact (SPOCs). Applicants from these twenty-seven jurisdictions need take no action.
Although the jurisdictions listed above no longer participate in the process, entities which have met the eligibility requirements of the program are still eligible to apply for a grant even if a State, Territory, Commonwealth, etc. does not have a SPOC. All remaining jurisdictions participate in the Executive Order process and have established SPOCs. Applicants from participating jurisdictions should contact their SPOCs as soon as possible to alert them of the prospective applications and receive instructions. Applicants must submit any required material to the SPOCs as soon as possible so that the program office can obtain and review SPOC comments as part of the award process. The applicant must submit all required materials, if any, to the SPOC and indicate the date of this submittal (or the date of contact if no submittal is required) on the Standard Form 424, item 16a. Under 45 CFR 100.8(a)(2), a SPOC has 60 days from the application deadline to comment on proposed new or competing continuation awards.
SPOCs are encouraged to eliminate the submission of routine endorsements as official recommendations. Additionally, SPOCs are requested to clearly differentiate between mere advisory comments and those official State process recommendations which may trigger the “accommodate or explain” rule.
When comments are submitted directly to ACF, they should be addressed to: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Division of Discretionary Grants, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Mail Stop 6C-462, Washington, DC 20447.
A list of the Single Points of Contact for each State and Territory is included with the application materials for this announcement.
OCS will not fund any project where the role of the applicant is primarily to serve as a conduit for funds to organizations other than the applicant. The applicant must have a substantive role in the implementation of the project for which funding is requested. This prohibition does not bar the making of sub-grants or sub-contracting for specific services or activities that are needed to conduct the project.
Each application may include only one proposed project.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, the Department is required to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval of any reporting and record keeping requirements in regulations including program announcements. This program announcement does not contain information collection requirements beyond those approved for ACF grant applications under the Program Narrative Statement by OMB Approval Number 0970-0139.
The project description is approved under OMB Control Number 0970-0139. 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.
Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 25 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed and reviewing the collection of information.
The following are instructions and guidelines on how to prepare the “project summary/abstract” and “Full Project Description” sections of the application. Under the evaluation criteria section, note that each criterion is preceded by the generic evaluation requirement under the ACF Uniform Project Description (UPD). The UPD was approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), control Number 0970-0139. The generic UPD requirement is followed by the evaluation criterion specific to the Community Services Block Grant legislation.
The project description provides a major means by which an application is evaluated and ranked to compete with other applications for available assistance. The project description should be concise and complete and should address the activity for which Federal funds are being requested. Supporting documents should be included where they can present information clearly and succinctly. In preparing your project description, all information requested through each specific evaluation criteria should be provided. Awarding offices use this and other information in making their funding recommendations. It is important, therefore, that this information be included in the application.
Applicants required to submit a full project description shall prepare the project description statement in accordance with the following instructions and the specified evaluation criteria. The instructions give a broad overview of what your project description should include while the evaluation criteria expands and clarifies more program-specific information that is needed.
Provide a summary of the project description (a page or less) with reference to the funding request.
Clearly identify the physical, economic, social, financial, institutional, and/or other problem(s) requiring a solution. The need for assistance must be demonstrated and the principal and subordinate objectives of the project must be clearly stated; supporting documentation, such as letters of support and testimonials from concerned interests other than the applicant, may be included. Any relevant data based on planning studies should be included or referred to in the endnotes/footnotes. Incorporate demographic data and participant/beneficiary information, as needed. In developing the project description, the applicant may volunteer or be requested to provide information on the total range of projects currently being conducted and supported (or to be initiated), some of which may be outside the scope of the program announcement.
Identify the results and benefits to be derived. For example, describe the population to be served by the program and the number of new jobs that will be targeted to the target population. Explain how the project will reach the targeted population, how it will benefit participants including how it will support individuals to become more economically self-sufficient.
Outline a plan of action which describes the scope and detail of how the proposed work will be accomplished. Account for all functions or activities identified in the application. Cite factors which might accelerate or decelerate the work and state your reason for taking the proposed approach rather than others. Describe any unusual features of the project such as design or technological innovations, reductions in cost or time, or extraordinary social and community involvement.
Provide quantitative monthly or quarterly projections of the accomplishments to be achieved for each function or activity in such terms as the number of people to be served and the number of activities accomplished. Account for all functions or activities identified in the application. Cite factors that might accelerate or decelerate the work and state your reasons for taking the proposed approach rather than others. Describe any unusual features of the project such as design or technical innovations, reductions in cost or time or extraordinary social and community involvement.
Provide quantitative monthly or quarterly projections of the accomplishments to be achieved for each function or activity in, for example such terms as the “number of people served.” When accomplishments cannot be quantified by activity or function, list them in chronological order to show the schedule of accomplishments and their target dates.
If any data is to be collected, maintained, and/or disseminated, clearance may be required from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This clearance pertains to any “collection of information that is conducted or sponsored by ACF.”
List organizations, cooperating entities, consultants, or other key individuals who will work on the project along with a short description of the nature of their effort or contribution.
Provide a narrative addressing how the results of the project and the conduct of the project will be evaluated. In addressing the evaluation of results, state how you will determine the extent to which the project has achieved its stated objectives and the extent to which the accomplishment of objectives can be attributed to the project. Discuss the criteria to be used to evaluate results, and explain the methodology that will be used to determine if the needs identified and discussed are being met and if the project results and benefits are being achieved. With respect to the conduct of the project, define the procedures to be employed to determine whether the project is being conducted in a manner consistent with the work plan presented and discuss the
Provide information on the applicant organization(s) and cooperating partners such as organizational charts, financial statements, audit reports or statements from CPAs/Licensed Public Accountants, Employer Identification Numbers, names of bond carriers, contact persons and telephone numbers, child care licenses and other documentation of professional accreditation, information on compliance with Federal/State/local government standards, documentation of experience in the program area, and other pertinent information. Any non-profit organization submitting an application must submit proof of its non-profit status in its application at the time of submission.
The non-profit agency can accomplish this by providing a copy of the applicant's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code, or by providing a copy of the currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate, or by providing a copy of the articles of incorporation bearing the seal of the State in which the corporation or association is domiciled.
Provide line item detail and detailed calculations for each budget object class identified on the Budget Information form. Detailed calculations must include estimation methods, quantities, unit costs, and other similar quantitative detail sufficient for the calculation to be duplicated. The detailed budget must also include a breakout by the funding sources identified in Block 15 of the SF-424.
Provide a narrative budget justification that describes how the categorical costs are derived. Discuss the necessity, reasonableness, and allocability of the proposed costs.
(1) The work program is results-oriented, approximately related to the legislative mandate and specifically related to the priority area under which funds are being requested. Application addresses the following: specific outcomes to be achieved; performance targets that the project is committed to achieving, including a discussion of and how the project will verify the achievement of these targets; critical milestones which must be achieved if results are to be gained; organizational support, the level of support from the applicant organization; past performance in similar work; and specific resources contributed to the project that are critical to success.
(2) The application defines the comprehensive nature of the project and methods that will be used to ensure that the results can be used to address a statewide or nationwide project as defined by the description of the particular priority area.
(1) The application demonstrates that it has experience and a successful record of accomplishment relevant to the specific activities it proposes to accomplish.
(2) If the application proposes to provide training and technical assistance, it details its abilities to provide those services on a nationwide basis. If applicable, information provided by the applicant also addresses related achievements and competence of each cooperating or sponsoring organization.
(3) The application fully describes, for example in a resume, the experience and skills of the proposed project director and primary staff showing specific qualifications and professional experiences relevant to the successful implementation of the proposed project.
(4) The application describes how it will involve partners in the Community Services Network in its activities. Where appropriate, applicant describes how it will interface with other related organizations.
(5) If subcontracts are proposed, the application documents the willingness and capacity of the subcontracting organization(s) to participate as described.
(1) The application documents that the proposed project addresses vital needs related to the program purposes and provides statistics and other data and information in support of its contention.
(2) The application provides current supporting documentation or other testimonies regarding needs from State CSBG Directors, CAAs and local service providers and/or State and Regional organizations of CAAs and other local service providers.
(1) The application describes how the project will assure long-term program and management improvements for State CSBG offices, CAA State and/or regional associations, CAAs and/or other local providers of CSBG services and activities.
(2) The application indicates the types and amounts of public and/or private resources it will mobilize, how those resources will directly benefit the project, and how the project will ultimately benefit low-income individuals and families.
(3) If the application proposes a project with a training and technical assistance focus, the application indicates the number of organizations and/or staff that will benefit from those services.
(4) If the application proposes a project with data collection focus, the application describes the mechanism it will use to collect data, how it can assure collections from a significant number of States, and the number of States willing to submit data to the applicant.
(5) If the application proposes to develop a symposium series or other policy-related project(s), the application identifies the number and types of beneficiaries.
(6) The application describes methods of securing participant feedback and evaluations of activities.
(1) The resources requested are reasonable and adequate to accomplish the project
(2) Total costs are reasonable and consistent with anticipated results.
Each application submitted to OCS will be screened to determine whether it was received by the closing date and time.
Applications received by the closing date and time will be screened for completeness and conformity with the following requirements. Only complete applications that meet the requirements listed below will be reviewed and evaluated competitively. Other applications will be returned to the applicants with a notation that they were unacceptable and will not be reviewed.
All applications must comply with the following requirements except as noted:
Applications that pass the initial OCS screening will be reviewed and rated by a panel based on the program elements and review criteria presented in relevant sections of this program announcement. The review criteria are designed to enable the review panel to assess the quality of a proposed project and determine the likelihood of its success. The criteria are closely related to each other and are considered as a whole in judging the overall quality of an application. The review panel awards points only to applications that are responsive to the program elements and relevant review criteria within the context of this program announcement.
The OCS Director and program staff use the reviewer scores when considering competing applications. Reviewer scores will weigh heavily in funding decisions, but will not be the only factors considered.
Applications generally will be considered in order of the average scores assigned by the review panel. Because other important factors are taken into consideration, highly ranked applications are not guaranteed funding. These other considerations include, for example: The timely and proper completion by the applicant of projects funded with OCS funds granted in the last five (5) years; comments of reviewers and government officials; staff evaluation and input; amount and duration of the grant requested and the proposed project's consistency and harmony with OCS goals and policy; geographic distribution of applications; previous program performance of applicants; compliance with grant terms under previous HHS grants, including the actual dedication to program of mobilized resources as set forth in project applications; audit reports; investigative reports; and applicant's progress in resolving any final audit disallowance on previous OCS or other Federal agency grants.
Following approval of the application selected for funding, ACF will mail a written notice of project approval and authority to draw down project funds. The official award document is the Financial Assistance Award that specifies the amount of Federal funds approved for use in the project, the project and budget period for which support is provided and the terms and conditions of the award. The Financial Assistance Award is signed and issued via postal mail by an authorized Grants Officer.
ACF will notify unsuccessful applicants after the award is issued to the successful applicant.
Grantees are subject to the requirements in 45 CFR Part 74 (non-governmental) or 45 CFR Part 92 (governmental).
None.
All grantees are required to submit semi-annual program reports and semi-annual expenditure reports (SF-269) with final reports due 90 days after the project end date. A suggested format for the program report will be sent to all grantees after the awards are made.
Additional information about this program and its purpose can be located on the following Web site:
The Office of Community Services (OCS) within the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) announces that competing applications will be accepted for a new grant pursuant to the Secretary's authority under section 674(b) of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Act, as amended, by the Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services (COATES) Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998, (P.L. 105-285).
The proposed grant will fund one project to support the continued availability of technical assistance through a national community action web-site that describes successful programs and practices of State and local agencies, in support of national community action Goal 5: “Agencies Increase their Capacity to Achieve Results.”
The following definitions apply:
At-Risk Agencies refers to CSBG eligible entities in crises. The problem(s) to be addressed must be of a complex or pervasive nature that cannot be adequately addressed through existing local or State resources.
Capacity-building refers to activities that assist Community Action Agencies (CAAs) and other eligible entities to improve or enhance their overall or specific capability to plan, deliver, manage and evaluate programs efficiently and effectively to produce intended results for low-income individuals. This may include upgrading internal financial management or computer systems, establishing new external linkages with other organizations, improving board functioning, adding or refining a
Community in relationship to broad representation refers to any group of individuals who share common distinguishing characteristics including residency, for example, the “low-income” community, or the “religious” community or the “professional” community. The individual members of these “communities” may or may not reside in a specific neighborhood, county or school district but the local service provider may be implementing programs and strategies that will have a measurable affect on them. Community in this context is viewed within the framework of both community conditions and systems,
Community Services Network (CSN) refers to the various organizations involved in planning and implementing programs funded through the Community Services Block Grant or providing training, technical assistance or support to them. The network includes local Community Action Agencies and other eligible entities; State CSBG offices and their national association; CAA State, regional and national associations; and related organizations which collaborate and participate with Community Action Agencies and other eligible entities in their efforts on behalf of low-income people.
Eligible applicants described in this announcement shall be eligible entities, organizations, (including faith-based) or associations with demonstrated expertise in providing training to individuals and organizations on methods of effectively addressing the needs of low-income families and communities. See description of Eligible Entities below.
Eligible entity means any organization that was officially designated as a Community Action Agency (CAA) or a community action program under Section 673(1) of the Community Services Block Grant Act, as amended by the Human Services Amendments of 1994 (P. L. 103-252), and meets all the requirements under Sections 673(1)(A)(I), and 676A of the CSBG Act, as amended by the Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998. All eligible entities are current recipients of Community Services Block Grant funds, including migrant and seasonal farm worker organizations that received CSBG funding in the previous fiscal year.
Local service providers are local public or private non-profit agencies that receive Community Services Block Grant funds from States to provide services to, or undertake activities on behalf of, low-income people.
Nationwide refers to the scope of the technical assistance, training, data collection, or other capacity-building projects to be undertaken with grant funds. Nationwide projects must provide for the implementation of technical assistance, training or data collection for all or a significant number of States, and the local service providers who administer CSBG funds.
Non-profit Organization refers to an organization, including faith-based, which has “demonstrated experience in providing training to individuals and organizations on methods of effectively addressing the needs of low income families and communities.” Acceptable documentation for eligible non-profit status is limited to: (1) A copy of a current, valid Internal Revenue service tax exemption certificate; (2) a copy of the applicant organization's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code; and/or (3) Articles of incorporation bearing the seal of the State in which the corporation or association is domiciled.
Outcome Measures are definable changes in the status or condition of individuals, families, organizations, or communities as a result of program services, activities, or collaborations.
Performance Measurement is a tool used to objectively assess how a program is accomplishing its mission through the delivery of products, services, and activities.
Program technology exchange refers to the process of sharing expert technical and programmatic information, models, strategies and approaches among the various partners in the Community Services Network. This may be done through written case studies, guides, seminars, technical assistance, and other mechanisms.
Regional Networks refers to CAA State Associations within a region.
Results-Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA) System: ROMA is a system, which provides a framework for focusing on results for local agencies funded by the Community Services Block Grant Program. It involves setting goals and strategies and developing plans and techniques that focus on a result-oriented performance based model for management.
State means all of the 50 States and the District of Columbia. Except where specifically noted, for purposes of this program announcement, it also includes specified Territories.
State CSBG Lead Agency (SCLA) is the lead agency designated by the Governor of the State to develop the State CSBG application and to administer the CSBG Program.
Statewide refers to training and technical assistance activities and other capacity building activities undertaken with grant funds that will have significant impact,
Technical assistance is an activity, generally utilizing the services of an expert (often a peer), aimed at enhancing capacity, improving programs and systems, or solving specific problems. Such services may be provided proactively to improve systems or as an intervention to solve specific problems.
Territories refer to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and American Samoa for the purpose of this announcement.
Training is an educational activity or event which is designed to impart knowledge, understanding, or increase the development of skills. Such training activities may be in the form of assembled events such as workshops, seminars, conferences or programs of self-instructional activities.
Community Action Goal 5: “Agencies Increase Their Capacity To Achieve Results”
Effective State and Local Community Action Programs Web Site
Program Purpose, Scope and Focus
OCS will continue its support of electronic sharing of information concerning effective program strategies across the Community Services Network, including but not limited to information concerning:
• Activities and partnerships that promote self-sufficiency among low-income individuals and families;
• Activities and partnerships that promote community development and well-being;
• Programs that achieve specific results in the various service and activity foci of community action, such as housing, transportation, health care, child development, child care, community enhancement, community involvement, advocacy.
The envisioned Web site will provide easy access to information concerning
Community Services Block Grant eligible entities, State Community Action Associations including faith-based organizations, nonprofit organizations having 501 (c) (3) status, and nonprofits that do not have 501 (c) (3) status.
As prescribed by the Community Services Block Grant Act (Public Law 105-285, Section 678(c)(2), eligible applicants are eligible entities (see definitions), organizations, or associations with demonstrated expertise in providing training to individuals and organizations on methods of effectively addressing the needs of low-income families and communities.
Any non-profit organization submitting an application must submit proof of its non-profit status in its application at the time of submission. The non-profit agency can accomplish this by providing:
(a) A reference to the applicant organization's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in the IRS Code;
(b) A copy of a currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate;
(c) A statement from a State taxing body, State attorney general, or other appropriate State official certifying that the applicant organization has a non-profit status and that none of the net earnings accrue to any private shareholders or individuals;
(d) A certified copy of the organization's certificate of incorporation or similar document that clearly establishes non-profit status;
(e) Or any of the items referenced above for a State or national parent organization and a statement signed by the parent organization that the applicant organization is a local non-profit affiliate.
Private, non-profit organizations are encouraged to submit with their applications the survey located under “Grant Related Documents and Forms” titled “Survey for Private, Non-Profit Grant Applicants” at
On June 27, 2003, the Office of Management and Budget published in the
Please ensure that your organization has a DUNS number. You may acquire a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line on 1-866-705-5711 or you may request a number on-line at
Office of Community Services Operations Center, ATTN: Dr. Margaret Washnitzer, 1815 Fort Myer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22209: Telephone: (800) 281-9519:
An original and two copies of the complete application are required. The original and the 2 copies must include all required forms, certifications, assurances, and appendices, be signed by an authorized representative of the applicant organization, have original signatures, and be submitted unbound. Applicants have the option of omitting from the application copies (not the original) specific salary rates or amounts for individuals specified in the application budget and Social Security Numbers. The copies may include summary salary information.
You may submit your application to us in either electronic or paper format. To submit an application electronically, please use the
• Electronic submission is voluntary.
• When you enter the Grants. Gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. We strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants. Gov.
• To use Grants.gov, you, as the applicant, must have a DUNS Number and register in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR). You should allow a minimum of five days to complete the CCR registration.
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit a grant application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit an application in paper format.
• You may submit all documents electronically, including all information typically included on the SF 424 and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• Your application must comply with any page limitation requirements
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The Administration for Children and Families will retrieve your application from Grants.gov
• We may request that you provide original signatures on forms at a later date.
• You may access the electronic application for this program on
Each application must include the following components:
(a) Table of Contents
(b) Abstract of the Proposed Project—very brief, not to exceed 250 words, that would be suitable for use in an announcement that the application has been selected for a grant award and which identifies the type of project, the target population and the major elements of the work plan.
(c) Completed Standard Form 424—that has been signed by an Official of the organization applying for the grant who has authority to obligate the organization legally.
(d) Standard Form 424A—Budget Information-Non-Construction Programs.
(e) Narrative Budget Justification—for each object class category required under Section B, Standard Form 424A.
(f) Project Narrative—A narrative that addresses issues described in the “Application Review Information” and the “Review and Selection Criteria” sections of this announcement.
Each application should include one signed original application and two additional copies of the same application.
Submit application materials on white 8
Please do not include organizational brochures or other promotional materials, slides, films, clips, etc.
The font size may be no smaller than 12 pitch and the margins must be at least one inch on all sides.
Number all application pages sequentially throughout the package, beginning with the abstract of the proposed project as page number one.
Please present application materials either in loose-leaf notebooks or in folders with pages two-hole punched at the top center and fastened separately with a slide paper fastener.
The application package including sections for the Table of Contents, Project Abstract, Project and Budget Narratives must not exceed 30 pages. The page limitation does not include the following attachments and appendices: Standard Forms for Assurances, Certifications, Disclosures and appendices. The page limitation also does not apply to any supplemental documents as required in this announcement.
Applicants requesting financial assistance for a non-construction project must sign and return Standard Form 424B, Assurances: Non-Construction Programs with their applications.
Applicants must provide a Certification Regarding Lobbying. Prior to receiving an award in excess of $100,000, applicants shall furnish an executed copy of the lobbying certification. Applicants must sign and return the certification with their application
Applicants must make the appropriate certification of their compliance with all Federal statues relating to nondiscrimination. By signing and submitting the applications, applicants are providing the certification and need not mail back a certification form.
Applicants must make the appropriate certification of their compliance with the requirements of the Pro-Children Act of 1994 as outlined in Certification Regarding Environmental Tobacco Smoke. By signing and submitting the applications, applicants are providing the certification and need not mail back a certification form.
(a) The application must contain a signed Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance, a Standard Form 424-A, Budget Information, and signed Standard Form 424-B, Assurance—Non-Construction Programs, completed according to instructions provided in this Program Announcement. The Forms SF-424 and SF-424B must be signed by an official of the organization applying for the grant who has authority to obligate the organization legally. The applicant's legal name as required on the SF-424 (Item 5) must match that listed as corresponding to the Employer Identification Number (Item 6);
(b) The application must include a project narrative that meets the requirements set forth in this announcement;
(c) The application must contain documentation of the applicant's tax-exempt status as indicated in the “Funding Opportunity Description” section of this announcement;
Private, non-profit organizations are encouraged to submit with their applications the survey located under “Grant Related Documents and Forms” titled “Survey for Private, Non-Profit Grant Applicants.” The forms are located on the web at
It is in the applicant's best interest to ensure that the project description is easy to read, logically developed in accordance with the evaluation criteria and adheres to the page limitation. In addition, applicants should be mindful of the importance of preparing and submitting applications using language, terms, concepts and descriptions that are generally known by the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) network.
The maximum number of pages for supplemental documentation is 10 pages. The supplemental documentation, subject to the 10-page limit, must be numbered and might include brief resumes, position descriptions, proof of non-profit status, news clippings, press releases, etc. Supplemental documentation over the 10-page limit will not be reviewed.
Applicants must include letters of support or agreement, if appropriate or applicable, in reference to the project description. Letters of support are not counted as part of the 30-page project description limit or the 10-page supplemental documentation limit. All applications must comply with the following requirements as noted:
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
The closing time and date for receipt of applications is 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on June 18, 2004. Mailed or hand carried applications received after 4:30 p.m. on the closing date will be classified as late.
Applications hand carried by applicants, applicant couriers, other representatives of the applicant, or by overnight/express mail couriers shall be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline date, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST), at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services' Operations Center, 1815 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22209, between Monday and Friday (excluding federal holidays). This address must appear on the envelope/package containing the application with the note: “Attention: Barbara Ziegler Johnson”. Applicants are cautioned that express/overnight mail services do not always deliver as agreed.
ACF will not send acknowledgements of receipt of application materials.
Private-non-profit organizations may submit with their applications the additional survey located under “Grant Related Documents and Forms” titled “Survey for Private, Non-Profit Grant Applicants”.
This program is covered under Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” and 45 CFR Part 100, “Intergovernmental Review of Department of Health and Human Services Programs and Activities.” Under the Order, States may design their own processes for reviewing and commenting on proposed Federal
All States and Territories except Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming and Palau have elected to participate in the Executive Order process and have established Single Points of Contact (SPOCs). Applicants from these twenty-seven jurisdictions need take no action.
Although the jurisdictions listed above no longer participate in the process, entities which have met the eligibility requirements of the program are still eligible to apply for a grant even if a State, Territory, Commonwealth, etc. does not have a SPOC. All remaining jurisdictions participate in the Executive Order process and have established SPOCs. Applicants from participating jurisdictions should contact their SPOCs as soon as possible to alert them of the prospective applications and receive instructions. Applicants must submit any required material to the SPOCs as soon as possible so that the program office can obtain and review SPOC comments as part of the award process. The applicant must submit all required materials, if any, to the SPOC and indicate the date of this submittal (or the date of contact if no submittal is required) on the Standard Form 424, item 16a. Under 45 CFR 100.8(a)(2), a SPOC has 60 days from the application deadline to comment on proposed new or competing continuation awards.
SPOCs are encouraged to eliminate the submission of routine endorsements as official recommendations. Additionally, SPOCs are requested to clearly differentiate between mere advisory comments and those official State process recommendations which may trigger the “accommodate or explain” rule.
When comments are submitted directly to ACF, they should be addressed to: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Division of Discretionary Grants, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Mail Stop 6C-462, Washington, DC 20447.
A list of the Single Points of Contact for each State and Territory is included with the application materials for this announcement.
OCS will not fund any project where the role of the applicant is primarily to serve as a conduit for funds to organizations other than the applicant. The applicant must have a substantive role in the implementation of the project for which funding is requested. This prohibition does not bar the making of sub-grants or sub-contracting for specific services or activities that are needed to conduct the project.
Each application may include only one proposed project.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L.104-13, the Department is required to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval of any reporting and record keeping requirements in regulations including program announcements. This program announcement does not contain information collection requirements beyond those approved for ACF grant applications under the Program Narrative Statement by OMB Approval Number 0970-0139.
The project description is approved under OMB control # 0970-0139. 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.
Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 25 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed and reviewing the collection of information.
The following are instructions and guidelines on how to prepare the “project summary/abstract” and “Full Project Description” sections of the application. Under the evaluation criteria section, note that each criterion is preceded by the generic evaluation requirement under the ACF Uniform Project Description (UPD). The UPD was approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), control Number 0970-0139. The generic UPD requirement is followed by the evaluation criterion specific to the Community Services Block Grant legislation.
The project description provides a major means by which an application is evaluated and ranked to compete with other applications for available assistance. The project description should be concise and complete and should address the activity for which Federal funds are being requested. Supporting documents should be included where they can present information clearly and succinctly. In preparing your project description, all information requested through each specific evaluation criteria should be provided. Awarding offices use this and
Applicants required to submit a full project description shall prepare the project description statement in accordance with the following instructions and the specified evaluation criteria. The instructions give a broad overview of what your project description should include while the evaluation criteria expands and clarifies more program-specific information that is needed.
Provide a summary of the project description (a page or less) with reference to the funding request.
Clearly identify the physical, economic, social, financial, institutional, and/or other problem(s) requiring a solution. The need for assistance must be demonstrated and the principal and subordinate objectives of the project must be clearly stated; supporting documentation, such as letters of support and testimonials from concerned interests other than the applicant, may be included. Any relevant data based on planning studies should be included or referred to in the endnotes/footnotes. Incorporate demographic data and participant/beneficiary information, as needed. In developing the project description, the applicant may volunteer or be requested to provide information on the total range of projects currently being conducted and supported (or to be initiated), some of which may be outside the scope of the program announcement.
Identify the results and benefits to be derived. For example, describe the population to be served by the program and the number of new jobs that will be targeted to the target population. Explain how the project will reach the targeted population, how it will benefit participants including how it will support individuals to become more economically self-sufficient.
Outline a plan of action which describes the scope and detail of how the proposed work will be accomplished. Account for all functions or activities identified in the application. Cite factors which might accelerate or decelerate the work and state your reason for taking the proposed approach rather than others. Describe any unusual features of the project such as design or technological innovations, reductions in cost or time, or extraordinary social and community involvement.
Provide quantitative monthly or quarterly projections of the accomplishments to be achieved for each function or activity in such terms as the number of people to be served and the number of activities accomplished. Account for all functions or activities identified in the application. Cite factors that might accelerate or decelerate the work and state your reasons for taking the proposed approach rather than others. Describe any unusual features of the project such as design or technical innovations, reductions in cost or time or extraordinary social and community involvement.
Provide quantitative monthly or quarterly projections of the accomplishments to be achieved for each function or activity in, for example such terms as the “number of people served.” When accomplishments cannot be quantified by activity or function, list them in chronological order to show the schedule of accomplishments and their target dates.
If any data is to be collected, maintained, and/or disseminated, clearance may be required from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This clearance pertains to any “collection of information that is conducted or sponsored by ACF.”
List organizations, cooperating entities, consultants, or other key individuals who will work on the project along with a short description of the nature of their effort or contribution.
Provide a narrative addressing how the results of the project and the conduct of the project will be evaluated. In addressing the evaluation of results, state how you will determine the extent to which the project has achieved its stated objectives and the extent to which the accomplishment of objectives can be attributed to the project. Discuss the criteria to be used to evaluate results, and explain the methodology that will be used to determine if the needs identified and discussed are being met and if the project results and benefits are being achieved. With respect to the conduct of the project, define the procedures to be employed to determine whether the project is being conducted in a manner consistent with the work plan presented and discuss the impact of the project's various activities on the project's effectiveness.
Provide information on the applicant organization(s) and cooperating partners such as organizational charts, financial statements, audit reports or statements from CPAs/Licensed Public Accountants, Employer Identification Numbers, names of bond carriers, contact persons and telephone numbers, child care licenses and other documentation of professional accreditation, information on compliance with Federal/State/local government standards, documentation of experience in the program area, and other pertinent information. Any non-profit organization submitting an application must submit proof of its non-profit status in its application at the time of submission.
The non-profit agency can accomplish this by providing a copy of the applicant's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code, or by providing a copy of the currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate, or by providing a copy of the articles of incorporation bearing the seal of the State in which the corporation or association is domiciled.
Provide line item detail and detailed calculations for each budget object class identified on the Budget Information form. Detailed calculations must include estimation methods, quantities, unit costs, and other similar quantitative detail sufficient for the calculation to be duplicated. The detailed budget must also include a breakout by the funding sources identified in Block 15 of the SF-424.
Provide a narrative budget justification that describes how the categorical costs are derived. Discuss the necessity, reasonableness, and allocability of the proposed costs.
(1) The work program is results-oriented, approximately related to the legislative mandate and specifically related to the priority area under which funds are being requested. Application addresses the following: specific outcomes to be achieved; performance targets that the project is committed to achieving, including a discussion of and how the project will verify the
(2) The application defines the comprehensive nature of the project and methods that will be used to ensure that the results can be used to address a statewide or nationwide project as defined by the description of the particular priority area.
(1) The application demonstrates that it has experience and a successful record of accomplishment relevant to the specific activities it proposes to accomplish.
(2) If the application proposes to provide training and technical assistance, it details its abilities to provide those services on a nationwide basis. If applicable, information provided by the applicant also addresses related achievements and competence of each cooperating or sponsoring organization.
(3) The application fully describes, for example in a resume, the experience and skills of the proposed project director and primary staff showing specific qualifications and professional experiences relevant to the successful implementation of the proposed project.
(4) The application describes how it will involve partners in the Community Services Network in its activities. Where appropriate, application describes how it will interface with other related organizations.
(5) If subcontracts are proposed, the application documents the willingness and capacity of the subcontracting organization(s) to participate as described.
(1) The application documents that the proposed project addresses vital needs related to the program purposes and provides statistics and other data and information in support of its contention.
(2) The application provides current supporting documentation or other testimonies regarding needs from State CSBG Directors, CAAs and local service providers and/or State and Regional organizations of CAAs and other local service providers.
(1) The application describes how the project will assure long-term program and management improvements for State CSBG offices, CAA State and/or regional associations, CAAs and/or other local providers of CSBG services and activities.
(2) The application indicates the types and amounts of public and/or private resources it will mobilize, how those resources will directly benefit the project, and how the project will ultimately benefit low-income individuals and families.
(3) If the application proposes a project with a training and technical assistance focus, the applicant indicates the number of organizations and/or staff that will benefit from those services.
(4) If the application proposes a project with data collection focus, applicant describes the mechanism it will use to collect data, how it can assure collections from a significant number of States, and the number of States willing to submit data to the applicant.
(5) If the application proposes to develop a symposium series or other policy-related project(s), the application identifies the number and types of beneficiaries.
(6) The application describes methods of securing participant feedback and evaluations of activities.
(1) The resources requested are reasonable and adequate to accomplish the project.
(2) Total costs are reasonable and consistent with anticipated results.
Each application submitted to OCS will be screened to determine whether it was received by the closing date and time.
Applications received by the closing date and time will be screened for completeness and conformity with the following requirements. Only complete applications that meet the requirements listed below will be reviewed and evaluated competitively. Other applications will be returned to the applicants with a notation that they were unacceptable and will not be reviewed.
All applications must comply with the following requirements except as noted:
Applications that pass the initial OCS screening will be reviewed and rated by a panel based on the program elements and review criteria presented in relevant sections of this program announcement. The review criteria are designed to enable the review panel to assess the quality of a proposed project and determine the likelihood of its success. The criteria are closely related to each other and are considered as a whole in judging the overall quality of an application. The review panel awards points only to applications that are responsive to the program elements and relevant review criteria within the context of this program announcement.
The OCS Director and program staff use the reviewer scores when considering competing applications. Reviewer scores will weigh heavily in funding decisions, but will not be the only factors considered.
Applications generally will be considered in order of the average scores assigned by the review panel. Because other important factors are taken into consideration, highly ranked applications are not guaranteed funding. These other considerations include, for example: the timely and proper completion by the applicant of projects funded with OCS funds granted in the last five (5) years; comments of reviewers and government officials; staff evaluation and input; amount and duration of the grant requested and the proposed project's consistency and harmony with OCS goals and policy; geographic distribution of applications; previous program performance of applicants; compliance with grant terms under previous HHS grants, including the actual dedication to program of mobilized resources as set forth in project applications; audit reports; investigative reports; and applicant's progress in resolving any final audit disallowance on previous OCS or other Federal agency grants.
Following approval of the application selected for funding, ACF will mail a written notice of project approval and authority to draw down project funds. The official award document is the Financial Assistance Award signed by an authorized Grants Officer which specifies the amount of Federal funds approved for use in the project, the project and budget period for which support is provided and the terms and conditions of the award.
ACF will notify unsuccessful applicants after the award is issued to the successful applicant.
Grantees are subject to the requirements in 45 CFR Part 74 (non-governmental) or 45 CFR Part 92
All grantees are required to submit semi-annual program reports with a final report due 90 days after the project end date. Grantees are also required to submit semi-annual expenditure reports using the required financial standard form (SF-269) with a final report due 90 days after the project end date. A suggested format for the program report will be sent to all grantees after the awards are made.
Additional information about this program and its purpose can be located on the following Web site:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Combination Products, Timeliness of Premarket Reviews, Dispute Resolution Guidance.” The Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (MDUFMA) delegates to the Office of Combination Products (OCP) responsibility for resolving disputes about the timeliness of premarket review of combination products. This guidance document provides information about presenting requests for resolution of disputes about the timeliness of premarket review of combination products.
Submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance by July 6, 2004. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Office of Combination Products, 15800 Crabbs Branch Way, suite 200, Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests.
Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
Suzanne O'Shea, Office of Combination Products (HFG-3), Food and Drug Administration, 15800 Crabbs Branch Way, suite 200, Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-9229; or
Sheryl Lard-Whiteford, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-4), 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-5413; or
Les Weinstein, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-5), 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850, 301-827-7991; or
Warren Rumble, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 5515 Security Lane, suite 500, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-594-5480.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Combination Products, Timeliness of Premarket Reviews, Dispute Resolution Guidance.” MDUFMA delegated to OCP responsibility for resolving disputes about the timeliness of reviews of premarket applications covering combination products. This guidance document provides information on how an applicant submitting an application(s) covering a combination product can submit a request that OCP resolve such a dispute.
A timeliness dispute arises when FDA does not review and act on an applicant's combination product application within the applicable performance goal set by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) or MDUFMA. Under PDUFA and MDUFMA, it is not expected that every application will meet every performance goal. Applications covering combination products in particular often present challenging review and regulatory issues. Nevertheless, because the PDUFA and MDUFMA performance goals reflect current review time expectations, it is appropriate to use them as guidelines.
The purpose of a timeliness dispute resolution request is to obtain the relevant review as quickly as possible, rather than to impose any sanction on the reviewing Center. In keeping with this perspective, upon receipt of a request for resolution of a timeliness dispute, OCP will contact the Center reviewing division and the Center Ombudsman to determine the current status of the review and what OCP can do to facilitate completion of the review as quickly as possible. If necessary and feasible, a plan for the completion of the review, including a target date for completion, will be developed.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on combination products, timeliness of premarket reviews, and dispute resolution. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Office of the Under Secretary for Science and Technology; Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
The Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee (HSSTAC) will meet in a partially closed session in New York, NY on May 20 & 21, 2004.
The HSSTAC will meet in closed session on May 20, 2004, from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on May 21, 2004 from 8:15 a.m. to 12 p.m. HSSTAC will meet in open session on May 21, 2004 from 12:45 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Craig Wilson, Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee, Department of Homeland Security, Directorate of Science and Technology, Washington, DC 20528; telephone (202) 205-5041; e-mail
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The HSSTAC will meet for purposes of: (1) Receiving briefings and examining initiatives and activities sponsored by the Directorate of Science and Technology; (2) receiving briefings on specific portfolios and activities from among the complement of the Directorate's portfolios and activities; (3) receiving a briefing on challenges for the Department; and (4) receiving status reports from HSSTAC subcommittees and discussing future committee actions. This meeting will be partially closed in compliance with Section 10(d) of FACA and Subsection (c) of 5 U.S.C. 552b, the Government in the Sunshine Act. The open portions of the meeting for purposes of (3) and (4) above will be held in the Environmental Measurement Laboratory from 12:45 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on May 21, 2004. The Environmental Measurement Laboratory is located at 201 Varick Street, New York, NY 10014. The closed portions of the meeting, for purposes of (1) and (2) above will be held at various locations from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on May 20, 2004, and from 8:15 a.m. to 12 p.m. on May 21, 2004.
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
Pursuant to section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 1641) and the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 111.51), the following Customs broker national permits are canceled without prejudice.
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
Pursuant to section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 1641) and the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 111.51), the following Customs broker local permits are canceled without prejudice.
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
General Notice.
Pursuant to section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 1641) and the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 111.51), the following Customs broker licenses are canceled with prejudice.
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
The following Customs broker license was erroneously included in a list of revoked Customs broker licenses.
Customs broker license No. 12614 remains valid.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Illinois (FEMA-1513-DR), dated April 23, 2004, and related determinations.
April 23, 2004.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated April 23, 2004, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Illinois, resulting from severe storms and tornadoes on April 20, 2004, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). I, therefore, declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Illinois.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes, such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State and any other form of assistance under the Stafford Act you may deem appropriate, subject to completion of preliminary damage assessments. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the Stafford Act will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. If Public Assistance is later warranted, Federal funds provided under that program will also be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Lee Champagne, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Illinois to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster: Kankakee, LaSalle, Putnam, and Will Counties for Individual Assistance.
All counties within the State of Illinois are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individual and Household Housing; 97.049, Individual and Household Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 Individual and Household Program—Other Needs, 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (FEMA-1512-DR), dated April 21, 2004, and related determinations.
April 21, 2004.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated April 21, 2004, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, resulting from flooding beginning on April 1, 2004, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). I, therefore, declare that such a major disaster exists in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes, such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Hazard Mitigation in the designated areas, and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act you may deem appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation, and the Other Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the Stafford Act will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. If Public Assistance is later requested and warranted, Federal funds provided under that program will also be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, James N. Russo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
I do hereby determine the following areas of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster: Essex, Middlesex, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Worcester Counties for Individual Assistance.
Essex, Middlesex, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Worcester Counties are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individual and Household Housing; 97.049, Individual and Household Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 Individual and Household Program—Other Needs, 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the Federated States of Micronesia (FEMA-1511--DR), dated April 10, 2004, and related determinations.
April 14, 2004.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective April 14, 2004.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the Federated States of Micronesia (FEMA-1511-DR), dated April 10, 2004, and related determinations.
April 26, 2004.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Federated States of Micronesia is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of April 10, 2004:
Yap State for Individual Assistance to include the Emergency Food Assistance Program through USDA (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B under the Public Assistance program] including direct Federal Assistance.)
The island of Fais, and the Ulithi Atoll within Yap State for Individual Assistance limited to Emergency Food Assistance through USDA.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of North Dakota (FEMA-3196-EM), dated April 2, 2004, and related determinations.
April 21, 2004.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
The notice of an emergency declaration for the State of North Dakota is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of April 2, 2004:
Burke, Mountrail, and Williams Counties for emergency protective measures (Category B) under the Public Assistance program for a period of 48 hours.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
HUD is requesting OMB approval to collect information in order to comply with Department of Labor (DOL) requirements (29 CFR Part 5, Section 5.7(b)) to submit a report of all new, covered contracts/projects and all enforcement activities each six months.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to
Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, AYO, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; e-mail
This Notice informs the public that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has submitted to OMB, for emergency processing, a survey instrument to obtain information from faith based and community organizations on their likelihood and success at applying for various funding programs. This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
This Notice also lists the following information:
All Federal agencies administering programs subject to Davis-Bacon wage provisions are required by Department of Labor (DOL) regulations (29 CFR Part 5, Section 5.7(b)) to submit a report of all new, covered contracts/projects and all enforcement activities each six months. In order for HUD to comply with DOL's requirement, it must collect contract and enforcement information from state and local agencies that administer HUD-assisted programs subject to Davis-Bacon requirements. HUD requests that such agencies complete and submit a Semi-annual Labor Standards Enforcement Report each six months. Information is provided using HUD form 4710.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Shelia Jones, Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing Urban and Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 7232, Washington, DC 20410.
Bill Seedyke, Director, Grants Management Division, Office of Economic Development, Office of Community Planning and Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7140, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number: (202) 708-3484, ext. 4445 (this is not a toll-free number) for copies of the proposed form and other available documents.
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as Amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., L'Enfant Plaza Building, Room 8003, Washington, DC 20410 or
Michael McCullough, Director, Office of Multifamily Housing Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-1142 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
The information is collected and evaluated, first by a rating agency and then by HUD. The purpose is to determine the financial strength and management reliability of the owner/operator. If the owner and/or the operator should go into bankruptcy or be unable to continue management of its large group of properties, to keep operating successfully would be severely jeopardized. The failure of the owner/operator could lead to large number of claims against the mortgage insurance fund.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the General Counsel, HUD.
NOFA; technical correction.
On April 23, 2004, HUD published its NOFA for the FY2004 Rural Housing and Economic Development (RHED) Program. The NOFA included HUD's Questionnaire for HUD's Initiative on Removal of Regulatory Barriers (Form HUD 27300). On April 21, 2004, HUD published a technical correction to this Questionnaire, and the revised Questionnaire was inadvertently omitted with the publication of the RHED NOFA. This notice advises of the substitution of the revised Questionnaire with the one published on April 23, 2004. No other changes are made to the RHED NOFA published on April 23, 2004.
For information concerning the HUD Rural Housing and Economic Development program, contact Ms. Holly A. Kelly, Economic Development Program Specialist, or Ms. Linda L. Streets, Community Development Specialist, Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7137, Washington, DC 20410-7000; telephone 202-708-2290 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
On April 23, 2004 (69 FR 22320), HUD published its NOFA for the FY2004 Rural Housing and Economic Development (RHED) Program. The NOFA included HUD's Questionnaire for HUD's Initiative on Removal of Regulatory Barriers (Form HUD 27300) (Questionnaire). (See 69 FR at 22372 through 22376). On April 21, 2004 (69 FR 21664), HUD published a technical correction to this Questionnaire. The revised Questionnaire was inadvertently omitted with the publication of the RHED NOFA. This notice advises of the substitution of the revised Questionnaire with the one published on April 23, 2004. A copy of the correct form is included with this notice published in today's
No other changes are made to the RHED NOFA published on April 23, 2004.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (We) has submitted the collection of information described below to OMB for approval under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act. An estimate of the information collection burden is included in this notice. If you wish to obtain copies of the proposed information collection requirement, related forms, and/or explanatory material, contact the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer at the address listed below.
OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, you must submit comments on or before June 3, 2004.
Submit your comments on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA via facsimile or electronic mail: (202) 395-6566 (fax); or
To request a copy of the information collection submission, explanatory information, and/or related forms, contact Anissa Craghead, Information Collection Clearance Officer, at 703-358-2445 or
OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Revisions to the currently approved requests for proposals include updating application forms to: (1) Comply with new Government-wide policy directing all funding programs to request Dun & Bradstreet registration from all applicants; (2) reformat to comply with new Government-wide policies prescribing a standard RFP format; (3) add additional instructions for applicants; (4) request from domestic applicants the submission of standard forms 424, 424a, 424b and DI 2010; and (5) reformat the application cover page form to fit on one page. In addition, two new requests for proposals have been added to the information collection in order to meet our obligations under the requirements of the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere. Form 3-2263, one of the two new requests for proposals, and its associated form will be translated into Spanish for the convenience of our Mexican applicants. The Spanish version of that form is assigned form number 3-2263S. The new requests for proposals (forms 3-2263, 3-2263S, and 3-2264) are noted in the table below. In addition, this information collection is currently titled, “Multinational Species Conservation Fund Requests for Proposals.” Due to the addition of two new requests for proposals that are not part of the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, we are proposing to change the title of this information collection to “Division of International Conservation Requests for Proposals.”
We published a notice inviting public comment on this information collection in the
The information obtained from the first four requests for proposals listed below will be used to select conservation projects for grant funding in accordance with the criteria in several Acts of Congress. The Acts of Congress include the African Elephant Conservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 4201-45), the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 5301-06), the Asian Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4261-4266), and the Great Ape Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 6301-6303). The information obtained from the final two requests for proposals will be used to select conservation projects for grant funding in accordance with the U.S. Government's obligations under the Western Hemisphere Convention, and authorized by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-44). The following table lists the requests for proposals, with their respective burden estimates, that we submitted to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
We again invite comments concerning this collection on: (1) 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; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden on the public; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond.
In accordance with Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Carrizo Plain National Monument Advisory Committee will meet as indicated below:
The meeting will be held on Saturday, May 22, 2004, at the Washburn Ranch Administrative Site on the Carrizo Plain National Monument. The Site is located on Soda Lake Road, approximately 20 miles south of the intersection of Soda Lake Road and Highway 58 in eastern San Luis Obispo County and there is a sign designating the location. The meeting will begin at 10 a.m. and finish at 5 p.m. There will be a public comment period from 3-4 p.m.
Bureau of Land Management, Attention: Marlene Braun, Monument Manager, 3801 Pegasus Drive, Bakersfield, CA 93308. Phone at (661) 391-6119 or email at:
The nine-member Carrizo Plain National Monument Advisory Committee advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of public land issues associated with the public land issues associated with public land management in the Carrizo Plain National Monument in Central California. At this meeting, Monument staff will present updated information on the progress on the new Carrizo Plain National Monument Resource Management Plan, introduce the new BLM Bakersfield Office Field Manager, Ron Huntsinger, and discuss other coordination opportunities. This meeting is open to the public, who may present written or verbal comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment, and the time available, the time allotted for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations should contact BLM as indicated below.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Second extension of comment period for review of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).
The Bureau of Reclamation is extending the review period for the DEIS to April 22, 2004. The notice of availability of the DEIS and notice of public workshop and notice of public hearings was published in the
Submit comments on the DEIS on or before April 22, 2004.
Send comments on the DEIS to Ms. Janet Sierzputowski, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way (Attn: MP-140), Sacramento, CA 95825. Comments may also be faxed to Ms. Sierzputowski at 916-978-5114 or 5177.
Mr. Tim Wakefield at 707-966-2111 x105. A copy of the Executive Summary, DEIS, the technical appendices, and/or a CD of the information on the Lake Berryessa Web site may be obtained by calling Ms. Sierzputowski at 916-978-5112.
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 public disclosure, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of Availability.
The following Water Management Plans are available for review:
• Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District
• Chowchilla Water District
• Gravelly Ford Water District
• Hills Valley Irrigation District
To meet the requirements of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (CVPIA) and the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has developed and published the Criteria for Evaluating Water Management Plans (Criteria). Note: For the purpose of this announcement, Water Management Plans (Plans) are considered the same as Water Conservation Plans. The above districts have developed a Plan, which Reclamation has evaluated and preliminarily determined to meet the requirements of these Criteria. Reclamation is publishing this notice in order to allow the public to review the plans and comment on the preliminary determinations. Public comment on Reclamation's preliminary (
All public comments must be received by June 3, 2004.
Please mail comments to Bryce White, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, California 95825, or contact at 916-978-5208 (TDD 978-5608), or e-mail at
To be placed on a mailing list for any subsequent information, please contact Mr. White at the e-mail address or telephone number above.
We are inviting the public to comment on our preliminary (
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that Reclamation withhold their home address from public disclosure, and we will honor such request to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which Reclamation would elect to withhold a respondent's identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. We will make all submissions from organizations, businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses available for public disclosure in their entirety. If you wish to review a copy of these Plans, please contact Mr. White to find the office nearest you.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (ID) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) in the above-captioned investigation partially terminating the investigation as to certain respondents' accused products on the basis of a consent order.
Andrea Casson, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3105. Copies of all nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
The Commission instituted this investigation on September 12, 2003, based on a complaint filed by American Biophysics Corp. (“ABC”) of East Greenwich, Rhode Island. 68 FR 53752. The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States, sale for importation, and/
On March 29, 2004, pursuant to Commission rule 210.21(c)(I)(ii), respondents BRC, BRCP, BRGS, and Guangdong filed a motion for partial termination of the investigation and entry of a consent order. The motion requested termination of the investigation with respect to these respondents' older model accused insect traps,
On April 9, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 23) granting the motion. No petitions for review of the ID were filed.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
May 14, 2004 at 11 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agenda for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Inv. No. 731-TA-1034 (Final) (Certain Color Television Receivers from China)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before May 26, 2004.)
5.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.
Notice of proposed exemptions.
This document contains notices of pendency before the Department of Labor (the Department) of proposed exemptions from certain of the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the Act) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code).
All interested persons are invited to submit written comments or requests for a hearing on the pending exemptions, unless otherwise stated in the Notice of Proposed Exemption, within 45 days from the date of publication of this
All written comments and requests for a hearing (at least three copies) should be sent to the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Office of Exemption Determinations, Room N-5649, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Attention: Application No. __, stated in each Notice of Proposed Exemption. Interested persons are also invited to submit comments and/or hearing requests to EBSA via e-mail or FAX. Any such comments or requests should be sent either by e-mail to:
Notice of the proposed exemptions will be provided to all interested persons in the manner agreed upon by the applicant and the Department within 15 days of the date of publication in the
The proposed exemptions were requested in applications filed pursuant to section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990). Effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type requested to the Secretary of Labor. Therefore, these notices of proposed exemption are issued solely by the Department.
The applications contain representations with regard to the proposed exemptions which are summarized below. Interested persons are referred to the applications on file with the Department for a complete statement of the facts and representations.
The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990).
If the proposed exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(D), 406(b)(1) and 406(b)(2) of the Act, and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(D) and (E) of the Code, shall not apply to the acquisition, holding and disposition of Comerica Incorporated Stock by Index and Model-Driven Funds managed by Comerica, provided that the following conditions and the general conditions in Section II are met:
(a) The acquisition or disposition of Comerica Incorporated Stock is for the sole purpose of maintaining strict quantitative conformity with the relevant index upon which the Index or Model-Driven Fund is based, and does not involve any agreement, arrangement or understanding regarding the design or operation of the Fund acquiring the Comerica Incorporated Stock which is intended to benefit Comerica or any party in which Comerica may have an interest.
(b) Whenever Comerica Incorporated Stock is initially added to an index on which an Index or Model-Driven Fund is based, or initially added to the portfolio of an Index or Model-Driven Fund, all acquisitions of Comerica Incorporated Stock necessary to bring the Fund's holdings of such Stock either to its capitalization-weighting or other specified composition in the relevant index, as determined by the independent organization maintaining such index, or to its correct weighting as determined by the model which has been used to transform the index (a “Buy-up” defined in Section III(e)), occur in the manner described in either (1) or (2) below:
(1) If,
(A) The aggregate required purchase of Comerica Incorporated Stock is less than one (1) percent of the total trading volume in Comerica Incorporated Stock during the previous ten (10) trading days, and
(B) The required purchase can be completed within ten (10) trading days with each day's purchase limited to no more than ten (10) percent of the aggregate required purchase,
Then all purchases would be made by placing market-on-close orders either with a broker-dealer independent of Comerica which is registered under the '34 Act or through an automated trading system operated by a broker-dealer independent of Comerica which is registered under the '34 Act and which provides a mechanism for customer orders to be matched on an anonymous basis without the participation of the broker-dealer; or
(2) If the conditions under (1) cannot be met, then:
(A) Purchases are from, or through, only one broker or dealer on a single trading day;
(B) Based on the best available information, purchases are not the opening transaction for the trading day;
(C) Purchases are not effected in the last half hour before the scheduled close of the trading day;
(D) Purchases are at a price that is not higher than the lowest current independent offer quotation, determined on the basis of reasonable inquiry from non-affiliated brokers;
(E) Aggregate daily purchases do not exceed 15 percent of the average daily trading volume for the security, as determined by the greater of either (i) the trading volume for the security occurring on the applicable exchange and automated trading system on the date of the transaction, or (ii) an aggregate average daily trading volume for the security occurring on the applicable exchange and automated trading system for the previous five (5) business days, both based on the best information reasonably available at the time of the transaction;
(F) All purchases and sales of Comerica Incorporated Stock occur either (i) on a recognized securities exchange (as defined in Section III(k) below), (ii) through an automated trading system (as defined in Section III(j) below) operated by a broker-dealer independent of Comerica that is either registered under the '34 Act, and thereby subject to regulation by the SEC, which provides a mechanism for customer orders to be matched on an anonymous basis without the participation of a broker-dealer, or (iii) through an automated trading system (as defined in Section III(j) below) that is operated by a recognized securities exchange (as defined in Section III(k) below), pursuant to the applicable securities laws, and provides a mechanism for customer orders to be matched on an anonymous basis without the participation of a broker-dealer; and
(G) If the necessary number of shares of Comerica Incorporated Stock cannot be acquired within 10 business days from the date of the event which causes the particular Fund to require Comerica Incorporated Stock, Comerica appoints a fiduciary which is independent of Comerica to design acquisition procedures and monitor Comerica's compliance with such procedures.
(c) Subsequent to a Buy-up necessary to bring a Fund's holdings of Comerica Incorporated Stock to its specified weighting in the index or model pursuant to the restrictions described in paragraph (b) above, all aggregate daily purchases of Comerica Incorporated Stock by the Funds do not exceed on any particular day the greater of:
(1) 15 percent of the average daily trading volume for the Comerica Incorporated Stock occurring on the applicable exchange and automated trading system (as defined below) for the previous five (5) business days, or
(2) 15 percent of the trading volume for Comerica Incorporated Stock occurring on the applicable exchange and automated trading system (as defined below) on the date of the transaction, as determined by the best available information for the trades that occurred on such date.
(d) All transactions in Comerica Incorporated Stock not otherwise described in paragraph (b) above are either: (i) entered into on a principal basis in a direct, arms-length transaction with a broker-dealer, in the ordinary course of its business, where such broker-dealer is independent of Comerica and is registered under the '34 Act, and thereby subject to regulation by the SEC, (ii) effected on an automated trading system (as defined in Section III(j) below) operated by a broker-dealer independent of Comerica that is subject to regulation by the SEC, or an automated trading system operated by a recognized securities exchange (as defined in Section III(k) below) which, in either case, provides a mechanism for customer orders to be matched on an anonymous basis without the participation of a broker-dealer, or (iii) effected through a recognized securities exchange (as defined in Section III(k) below) so long as the broker is acting on an agency basis.
(e) No transactions by a Fund involve purchases from, or sales to, Comerica (including officers, directors, or employees thereof), or any party in interest that is a fiduciary with discretion to invest plan assets into the Fund (unless the transaction by the
(f) No more than five (5) percent of the total amount of Comerica Incorporated Stock that is issued and outstanding at any time is held in the aggregate by Index and Model-Driven Funds managed by Comerica.
(g) Comerica Incorporated Stock constitutes no more than five (5) percent of any independent third party index on which the investments of an Index or Model-Driven Fund are based.
(h) A plan fiduciary independent of Comerica authorizes the investment of such plan's assets in an Index or Model-Driven Fund which purchases and/or holds Comerica Incorporated Stock, pursuant to the procedures described herein, other than in the case of a plan sponsored by Comerica for the benefit of its employees (a Comerica Plan).
(i) A fiduciary independent of Comerica directs the voting of the Comerica Incorporated Stock held by an Index or Model-Driven Fund on any matter in which shareholders of Comerica Incorporated Stock are required or permitted to vote.
(j) No more than ten (10) percent of the assets of any Fund that acquires and holds Comerica Incorporated Stock is comprised of assets of any Comerica Plan(s) for which Comerica exercises investment discretion.
(a) Comerica maintains or causes to be maintained for a period of six years from the date of the transaction the records necessary to enable the persons described in paragraph (b) of this Section to determine whether the conditions of this exemption have been met, except that (1) a prohibited transaction will not be considered to have occurred if, due to circumstances beyond the control of Comerica, the records are lost or destroyed prior to the end of the six-year period, and (2) no party in interest other than Comerica shall be subject to the civil penalty that may be assessed under section 502(i) of the Act or to the taxes imposed by section 4975(a) and (b) of the Code if the records are not maintained or are not available for examination as required by paragraph (b) below.
(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) and notwithstanding any provisions of section 504(a)(2) and (b) of the Act, the records referred to in paragraph (a) of this Section are unconditionally available at their customary location for examination during normal business hours by—
(A) Any duly authorized employee or representative of the Department or the Internal Revenue Service,
(B) Any fiduciary of a plan participating in an Index or Model-Driven Fund who has authority to acquire or dispose of the interests of the plan, or any duly authorized employee or representative of such fiduciary,
(C) Any contributing employer to any plan participating in an Index or Model-Driven Fund or any duly authorized employee or representative of such employer, and
(D) Any participant or beneficiary of any plan participating in an Index or Model-Driven Fund, or a representative of such participant or beneficiary.
(2) None of the persons described in subparagraphs (B) through (D) of this paragraph (b) shall be authorized to examine trade secrets of Comerica or commercial or financial information which is considered confidential.
(a) The term “Index Fund” means any investment fund, account or portfolio sponsored, maintained, trusteed, or managed by Comerica, in which one or more investors invest, and—
(1) Which is designed to track the rate of return, risk profile and other characteristics of an independently maintained securities Index, as described in Section III(c) below, by either (i) replicating the same combination of securities which compose such Index or (ii) sampling the securities which compose such Index based on objective criteria and data;
(2) For which Comerica does not use its discretion, or data within its control, to affect the identity or amount of securities to be purchased or sold;
(3) That contains “plan assets” subject to the Act, pursuant to the Department's regulations (see 29 CFR 2510.3-101, Definition of “plan assets”—plan investments); and,
(4) That involves no agreement, arrangement, or understanding regarding the design or operation of the Fund which is intended to benefit Comerica or any party in which Comerica may have an interest.
(b) The term “Model-Driven Fund” means any investment fund, account or portfolio sponsored, maintained, trusteed, or managed by Comerica, in which one or more investors invest, and—
(1) Which is composed of securities the identity of which and the amount of which are selected by a computer model that is based on prescribed objective criteria using independent third party data, not within the control of Comerica, to transform an independently maintained Index, as described in Section III(c) below;
(2) Which contains “plan assets” subject to the Act, pursuant to the Department's regulations (see 29 CFR 2510.3-101, Definition of “plan assets”—plan investments); and
(3) That involves no agreement, arrangement, or understanding regarding the design or operation of the Fund or the utilization of any specific objective criteria which is intended to benefit Comerica or any party in which Comerica may have an interest.
(c) The term “Index” means a securities index that represents the investment performance of a specific segment of the public market for equity or debt securities in the United States and/or foreign countries, but only if—
(1) The organization creating and maintaining the index is—
(A) Engaged in the business of providing financial information, evaluation, advice or securities brokerage services to institutional clients,
(B) A publisher of financial news or information, or
(C) A public stock exchange or association of securities dealers; and,
(2) The index is created and maintained by an organization independent of Comerica; and,
(3) The index is a generally accepted standardized index of securities which is not specifically tailored for the use of Comerica.
(d) The term “opening date” means the date on which investments in or withdrawals from an Index or Model-Driven Fund may be made.
(e) The term “Buy-up” means an acquisition of Comerica Incorporated Stock by an Index or Model-Driven Fund in connection with the initial addition of such Stock to an independently maintained index upon which the Fund is based or the initial investment of a Fund in such Stock.
(f) The term “Comerica” refers to Comerica Bank and its Affiliates, as defined below in paragraph (g).
(g) The term “Affiliate” means, with respect to Comerica Bank, an entity which, directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, is controlled by Comerica Incorporated.
(h) An “affiliate” of Comerica Incorporated includes:
(1) Any person, directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by or under common control with the person;
(2) Any officer, director, employee or relative of such person, or partner of any such person; and
(3) Any corporation or partnership of which such person is an officer, director, partner or employee.
(i) The term “control” means the power to exercise a controlling
(j) The term “automated trading system” means an electronic trading system that functions in a manner intended to simulate a securities exchange by electronically matching orders on an agency basis from multiple buyers and sellers, such as an “alternative trading system” within the meaning of the SEC's Reg. ATS [17 CFR Part 242.300], as such definition may be amended from time to time, or an “automated quotation system” as described in Section 3(a)(51)(A)(ii) of the '34 Act [15 USC 78c(a)(51)(A)(ii)].
(k) The term “recognized securities exchange” means a U.S. securities exchange that is registered as a “national securities exchange” under Section 6 of the '34 Act (15 U.S.C. 78f), or a designated offshore securities market, as defined in Regulation S of the SEC [17 CFR Part 230.902(b)], as such definition may be amended from time to time, which performs with respect to securities the functions commonly performed by a stock exchange within the meaning of definitions under the applicable securities laws (
1. Comerica Bank is a banking corporation chartered under the laws of Michigan. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Comerica Incorporated, which is a bank holding company regulated by and registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 as amended. Comerica Bank & Trust, National Association, is a federally chartered banking association. It is also a wholly-owned subsidiary of Comerica Incorporated. Comerica Bank has been granted trust powers by the Michigan Division of Financial Institutions which regulates Comerica Bank pursuant to Michigan law. As to fiduciary matters, the Michigan Division of Financial Institutions requires Michigan chartered banks to comply with the regulations promulgated by the United States Comptroller of the Currency. Comerica Bank is also regulated by the Federal Reserve Board. Comerica Bank & Trust, National Association has been granted trust powers by the Comptroller of the Currency under section 92a of the National Bank Act. World Asset Management (WAM) is an investment advisor registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. WAM is a Delaware limited liability company of which the controlling partners are Comerica Bank affiliates. The “Applicants” for the exemption proposed herein are Comerica Bank, Comerica Bank & Trust, National Association, WAM, and those other affiliates of Comerica Bank that act or may act in the future as fiduciaries to ERISA-covered plans.
2. The Applicants represent that they act as a trustee, a custodian of assets or an investment manager for various employee pension and welfare benefit plans which are subject to regulation under ERISA. In their fiduciary capacities, the Applicants have complete discretionary powers with respect to some plans, and as to other plans, they invest assets as directed by independent investment fiduciaries, the plan sponsors or individual plan participants.
3. Effective September 1, 1999, WAM became an investment manager for a group of employee benefit pension plans for which Comerica Bank previously acted as trustee. Under Comerica Bank's trusteeship, the plans' assets were invested in a Model-Driven Fund (
4. The Applicants organize and maintain collective investment funds for the pooled investment of assets of ERISA-regulated plans over which Comerica Bank has fiduciary powers. The collective funds are managed pursuant to specific investment objectives set forth in the declaration of trust for each fund. As prescribed by regulations of the Comptroller of the Currency, Comerica retains the fiduciary responsibility for the investment of the assets of their collective investment funds. The Applicants represent that by diversifying investments within collective funds, the investment risk to individual customer accounts is reduced while enabling the collective funds to pursue investment objectives which might otherwise be possible or prudent only for larger accounts. While Comerica retains the fiduciary responsibility for investing the assets of its collective investment funds, all of the funds invested according to indices (
5. Before investing the assets of an ERISA-covered employee benefit plan in its collective funds, Comerica represents that it complies with the requirements for the exemption of such transactions from the prohibitions of section 406(a) and (b) of the Act as provided in section 408(b)(8) of the Act.
6. The Applicants request that the Index and Model-Driven Funds be permitted to invest in Comerica Incorporated Stock if such Stock is included among the securities listed in the index utilized by the Fund. The Applicants represent that Comerica Incorporated Stock is currently included in the S&P 500 Index, the Wilshire 5000 Total Return Index, the Russell 3000 Index, and the Russell 1000 Index. Comerica has identified at least eight Index Funds it sponsors which would, if the exemption proposed herein is granted, acquire and hold Comerica Incorporated Stock. Those Index Funds are the Comerica 500 Index Fund (An Employee Benefit Stock Fund), Comerica Large Cap Value Index Fund (An Employee Benefit Fund), Comerica Large Cap Index Fund (A Tax Exempt Organizations Fund), Comerica 500 Index Fund (PEP)(An Employee Benefit Stock Fund), Trowel Trades S&P 500 Index Fund, Comerica Managed Asset Allocation Fund (An Employee Benefit Fund), and the Comerica Managed Asset Allocation Fund (A Tax Exempt Organizations Fund). At present, Comerica has excluded Comerica Incorporated Stock from the portfolios of those Index Funds holding “plan assets” subject to ERISA, even though such stock is included in the independently maintained indices upon which such Funds are based. The exclusion of Comerica Incorporated Stock prevents Comerica's Index Funds from accurately tracking the investment return published by the independent
7. The Applicants state that the exemption proposed herein is necessary to allow Funds holding “plan assets” to purchase and hold Comerica Incorporated Stock in order to replicate the capitalization-weighted or other specified composition of Comerica Incorporated Stock in an independently maintained third party index used by an Index Fund or to achieve the desired transformation of an index used to create a portfolio for a Model-Driven Fund.
In addition, the Applicants represent that there will be instances, once this proposed exemption is granted, when Comerica Incorporated Stock will be added to an index on which a Fund is based or will be added to the portfolio of a Fund which seeks to track an index that includes such stock. These instances will be referred to herein as a “Buy-up.” In such instances, acquisitions of Comerica Incorporated Stock will be necessary to bring the Fund's holdings of such stock either to its capitalization-weighted or other specified composition in the index, as determined by the independent organization maintaining such index, or to achieve the desired weighting for such stock as determined by the computer model which has been used to transform the index. If the Index or Model-Driven Fund holds “plan assets,” the Applicants represent that all acquisitions of Comerica Incorporated Stock will comply with the Buy-up conditions of this proposed exemption. These conditions are described in either (1) or (2) below, as applicable:
(1) If,
(A) The aggregate required purchase of Comerica ncorporated Stock is less than one (1) percent of the total trading volume in Comerica Incorporated Stock during the previous ten trading days, and
(B) The required purchase can be completed within ten (10) trading days with each day's purchase limited to no more than ten (10) percent of the aggregate required purchase,
(2) If the conditions in (1) above cannot be met, then:
(A) Purchases are from, or through, only one broker or dealer on a single trading day;
(B) Based on the best available information, purchases are not the opening transaction for the trading day;
(C) Purchases are not effected in the last half hour before the scheduled close of the trading day;
(D) Purchases are at a price that is not higher than the lowest current independent offer quotation, determined on the basis of reasonable inquiry from non-affiliated brokers;
(E) Aggregate daily purchases do not exceed 15 percent of the average daily trading volume for the security, as determined by the greater of either (i) the trading volume for the security occurring on the applicable exchange and automated trading system on the date of the transaction, or (ii) an aggregate average daily trading volume for the security occurring on the applicable exchange and automated trading system for the previous five (5) business days, both based on the best information reasonably available at the time of the transaction;
(F) All purchases and sales of Comerica Incorporated Stock occur either (i) on a recognized securities exchange as defined in Section III(k) above, (ii) through an automated trading system (as defined in Section III(j) above) operated by a broker-dealer independent of Comerica that is registered under the '34 Act, and thereby subject to regulation by the SEC, which provides a mechanism for customer orders to be matched on an anonymous basis without the participation of a broker-dealer, or (iii) through an automated trading system (as defined in Section III(j) above) that is operated by a recognized securities exchange (as defined in Section III(k) above) pursuant to the applicable securities laws, and provides a mechanism for customer orders to be matched on an anonymous basis without the participation of a broker-dealer; and
(G) If the necessary number of shares of Comerica Incorporated Stock cannot be acquired within 10 business days from the date of the event which causes the particular Fund to require Comerica Incorporated Stock, Comerica appoints a fiduciary which is independent of Comerica to design acquisition procedures and monitor Comerica's compliance with such procedures.
The Applicants represent that if an independent fiduciary were required to be appointed under “(2)(G)” above, the independent fiduciary and its principals will be completely independent from Comerica and its Affiliates and will be experienced in developing and operating investment strategies for individual and collective investment vehicles that track third-party indices. Furthermore, the independent fiduciary will not act as the broker for any purchases or sales of Comerica Incorporated Stock and will not receive any commissions as a result of the initial acquisition program.
The independent fiduciary will have as its primary goal the development of trading procedures that minimize the market impact of purchases made pursuant to the initial acquisition program by the Funds. The Applicants would expect that, under the trading procedures established by the independent fiduciary, the trading activities will be conducted in a low-profile, mechanical, non-discretionary manner and would involve a number of small purchases over the course of each day, randomly timed. The Applicants further expect that such a program will allow them to acquire the necessary shares of Comerica Incorporated Stock for the Funds with minimum impact on the market and in a manner that will be in the best interests of any employee benefit plans that participate in such Funds.
The independent fiduciary will also be required to monitor the Applicants' compliance with the trading program and procedures developed for the initial acquisition of Comerica Incorporated Stock. During the course of any initial acquisition program, the independent fiduciary will be required to review the activities weekly to determine compliance with the trading procedures and notify Comerica or WAM, as the case may be, should any non-compliance be detected. Should the trading procedures need modifications due to unforeseen events or consequences, the independent fiduciary will be required to consult with Comerica or WAM, as the case may be, and must approve in advance any alteration of the trading procedures.
8. The Applicants state that subsequent to acquisitions necessary to bring a Fund's holdings of Comerica Incorporated Stock to its specified weighting in the index or model pursuant to the restrictions described above, all aggregate daily purchases or sales of Comerica Incorporated Stock by the Funds will not exceed on any particular day the greater of: (i) 15% of the trading volume for Comerica Incorporated Stock on the exchange on which the stock is primarily traded and automated trading systems on the day of the transaction; or (ii) 15% of an aggregate average daily trading volume for the Comerica Incorporated Stock occurring on the exchange on which the stock is primarily traded and automated trading systems for the previous five business days, based upon the best information reasonably available at the time of the transaction.
The Applicants state that all transactions in Comerica Incorporated Stock subsequent to acquisitions necessary to bring a Fund's holdings of
The Applicants represent that no transactions in Comerica Incorporated Stock will involve purchases from or sales to Comerica or any affiliate (including officers, directors and employees of Comerica Bank or its affiliates, as defined in Section III(g) above), or any party in interest with respect to a plan which has discretion to invest plan assets into an Index or Model-Driven Fund.
9. The Applicants represent further that no more than five (5) percent of the total amount of Comerica Incorporated Stock issued and outstanding at any time will be held in the aggregate by the Index and Model-Driven Funds. For all acquisitions and holdings of Comerica Incorporated Stock by such Funds, the Applicants represent that they will ensure that Comerica Incorporated Stock does not constitute more than five (5) percent of the value of any independent third-party index on which the investments of an Index or Model-Driven Fund are based. In this regard, the weight currently assigned to Comerica Incorporated Stock in the S&P 500 Index is only approximately 0.0703% and 0.137% of the value subcategory. The Applicants have not identified any indices in which Comerica Incorporated Stock exceeds 5% of the index.
10. The Applicants state that a fiduciary independent of Comerica Bank and its affiliates will direct the voting of the Comerica Incorporated Stock held by an Index or Model-Driven Fund on any matter in which shareholders of Comerica Incorporated are required or permitted to vote. In all instances, the independent fiduciary chosen to vote Comerica Incorporated Stock for the Funds will be a consulting firm specializing in corporate governance issues and proxy voting on behalf of institutional investors with large equity portfolios. The fiduciary will develop and follow standard guidelines and procedures for the voting of proxies by institutional fiduciaries. Comerica will provide the independent fiduciary with all necessary information regarding the Funds that hold Comerica Incorporated Stock, the amount of Comerica Incorporated Stock held by the Funds on the record date for shareholder meetings of Comerica Incorporated, and all proxy and consent materials with respect to Comerica Incorporated Stock. The independent fiduciary will maintain records with respect to its activities as an independent fiduciary on behalf of the Funds, including the number of shares of Comerica Incorporated Stock voted, the manner in which they were voted, and the rationale for the vote if the vote was not consistent with the independent fiduciary's procedures and current voting guidelines in effect at the time of the vote. The independent fiduciary will be required to acknowledge that it will be acting as a fiduciary with respect to the plans which invest in the Funds which own Comerica Incorporated Stock, when voting such stock. The Applicants will engage Institutional Shareholder Services to act as the independent fiduciary to vote the Comerica Incorporated Stock.
11. Comerica represents that it may exercise some discretion in allocating and reallocating a plan's assets among various collective investment funds, including Funds which may hold Comerica Incorporated Stock. These allocations are based on a plan's investment objectives, risk profile and market conditions. Comerica represents that in such cases a plan fiduciary independent of Comerica and its affiliates will authorize the investment of such plan's assets in an Index or Model-Driven Fund which purchases and/or holds Comerica Incorporated Stock, other than in the case of a Comerica Plan. Comerica makes the following representations with respect to the purchase, directly or indirectly, of Comerica Incorporated Stock by such plans:
(a) Comerica represents that any prohibited transactions which might occur as a result of the discretionary allocation and reallocation of plan assets among collective investment funds will be exempt from the prohibitions of section 406 of the Act by reason of section 408(b)(8).
(b) Before Comerica Incorporated Stock is first purchased by a Fund, the appropriate independent fiduciary for each plan which is currently invested or could be invested in such Fund will be furnished an explanation and a simple form to return to Comerica for the purpose of indicating either approval or disapproval of investments in the Index or Model-Driven Fund including Comerica Incorporated Stock, together with a postage-paid return envelope. If the form is not returned to Comerica, Comerica may obtain a verbal response by telephone. If a verbal response is obtained by telephone, Comerica will confirm the fiduciary's decision in writing with five (5) business days. In the event no response is obtained from a plan fiduciary, the assets of the plan will not be invested in any Index Fund which invests in Comerica Incorporated Stock and any plan assets currently invested in such Fund at that time would be withdrawn.
(c) Each new management agreement with such a plan will contain language specifically approving or disapproving the investment in any Fund which holds or might hold Comerica Incorporated Stock. The fiduciary for each such plan will be informed that the existing management agreement could be modified in the same way. However, if the fiduciary does not specifically approve language in the agreement allowing the investment of plan assets in Funds which hold or might hold Comerica Incorporated Stock, then no such investment will be made by Comerica.
(d) Each such plan will be informed on a quarterly basis of any investment in, or withdrawal from, any Fund holding Comerica Incorporated Stock. The plan would be granted the election to override Comerica's discretionary decision to invest in, or withdraw from, such Funds. If the plan overrides Comerica's decision to invest in, or withdraw from, the Funds, then Comerica will carry out the plan's election as soon as possible after being notified of such election.
12. Comerica represents that the Comerica Incorporated Retirement Plan (the Comerica Retirement Plan) is trusteed by Comerica Bank. It has assets currently invested in three Comerica collective funds, the Comerica 500 Index Fund, the Comerica 500 Index Fund (PEP) and the Comerica Large Cap Value Index Fund. If the requested exemption is granted, these funds will be permitted to purchase Comerica Incorporated Stock, and as a consequence the Comerica Retirement Plan will invest in Comerica Incorporated Stock.
13. In summary, the Applicants represent that such transactions will meet the criteria of section 408(a) of the Act for the following reasons:
(a) Each Index or Model-Driven Fund involved will be based on an Index, as defined in Section III(c) above;
(b) The acquisition, holding and disposition of Comerica Incorporated Stock will be for the sole purpose of maintaining strict quantitative conformity with the relevant Index upon which the Index or Model-Driven Fund is based, and will not involve any agreement, arrangement or understanding regarding the design or operation of the Fund acquiring the Comerica Incorporated Stock which is intended to benefit Comerica or any party in which Comerica may have an interest;
(c) Whenever Comerica Incorporated Stock is initially added to an index on which a Fund is based, or initially added to the portfolio of a Fund (
(d) Subsequent to acquisitions necessary to bring a Fund's holdings of Comerica Incorporated Stock to its specified weighting in the index or model, pursuant to the restrictions noted in paragraph (c) above, all aggregate daily purchases of Comerica Incorporated Stock by the Funds will not exceed, on any particular day, the greater of: 15% of the average daily trading volume for such stock occurring on the applicable exchange or automated trading system for the previous five trading days, or 15% of the trading volume for such stock on the date of the transaction, as determined by the best available information for the trades that occurred on such date;
(e) All transactions in Comerica Incorporated Stock, other than acquisitions of such stock in a Buy-up described in paragraph (c) above, will be either: (i) Entered into on a principal basis with a broker-dealer, in the ordinary course of its business, where such broker-dealer is independent of Comerica and is registered under the '34 Act, and thereby subject to regulation by the SEC, (ii) effected on an automated trading system operating by a broker-dealer subject to regulation by the SEC, or by a recognized securities exchange which, in either case, provides a mechanism for customer orders to be matched on an anonymous basis without the participation of a broker-dealer, or (iii) effected through a recognized securities exchange (as defined herein) so long as the broker is acting on an agency basis;
(f) No transactions by a Fund will involve purchases from or sales to Comerica (including officers, directors, or employees thereof), or any party in interest that is a fiduciary with discretion to invest plan assets into the Fund;
(g) No more than five (5) percent of the total amount of Comerica Incorporated Stock, that is issued and outstanding at any time, will be held in the aggregate by Index and Model-Driven Funds managed by Comerica or its Affiliates;
(h) Comerica Incorporated Stock will constitute no more than five (5) percent of any independent third party index on which the investments of an Index or Model-Driven Fund are based;
(i) A plan fiduciary independent of Comerica will authorize the investment of such plan's assets in an Index or Model-Driven Fund which purchases and/or holds Comerica Incorporated Stock pursuant to the procedures described herein, including those which relate to portfolio management services provided to certain plans;
(j) A fiduciary independent of Comerica will direct the voting of the Comerica Incorporated Stock held by an Index or Model-Driven Fund on any matter in which shareholders of Comerica Incorporated Stock are required or permitted to vote; and
(k) No more than ten (10) percent of the assets of any Fund that acquires and holds Comerica Incorporated Stock will be comprised of assets of any Comerica Plan(s) for which Comerica exercises investment discretion.
In addition, Comerica shall provide a copy of the proposed exemption and, if granted, a copy of the final exemption upon request to all ERISA-covered plans that invest in Index or Model-Driven Fund that will include Comerica Incorporated Stock in its portfolio after the date the final exemption is published in the
Mr. Gary H. Lefkowitz of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8546. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990). If the exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a), 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (E) of the Code, shall not apply to: (i) The proposed series of loans (the Loans), originated within a 5-year period, by the Plan to REVCO Leasing Company, LLC (Revco), a party in interest with respect to the Plan; and (ii) a guarantee of the Loans (the Guarantee) by Les Olson Company, Inc. (the Employer), a party in interest with respect to the Plan, provided that the following conditions are met:
(a) The total amount of the outstanding Loans under this proposed exemption and PTE 2000-03 do not, in the aggregate, exceed 20 percent (20%) of the Plan's total assets at any time during the transactions;
(b) Each Loan entered into by the Plan is made pursuant to the terms and conditions of a loan agreement (the Loan Agreement) executed by the parties and signed on behalf of the Plan by the Plan's duly-appointed independent, qualified fiduciary (the I/F);
(c) All terms and conditions of the Loans are at least as favorable to the Plan as those the Plan could obtain in
(d) Each Loan is: (i) For a maximum term of five (5)years pursuant to terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement; (ii) fully amortized and payable in equal monthly installments of principal and interest; (iii) used exclusively by Revco to purchase office equipment (the Equipment) from the Employer, which Revco will lease to the Employer's customers (in the ordinary course of its business); and (iv) secured by duly perfected security interests in the new and used Equipment, and by certain leases of Equipment (Equipment Leases) where such Equipment Leases are assigned and pledged as collateral for the Loans, which is at all times equal to 200% of the outstanding principal balance of such Loan;
(e) New Equipment is valued for collateralization purposes at 80 percent (80%) of the invoice price paid by Revco to purchase such Equipment less taxes and transportation expenses. Used Equipment and any Equipment Lease pledged as collateral for the Loans is valued by an independent, qualified appraiser;
(f) Prior to the approval of each Loan, the I/F determines, on behalf of the Plan, that each Loan is prudent and in the best interests of the Plan, and protective of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries;
(g) The I/F conducts a review of all terms and conditions of the exemption, if granted, and the Loans, including: (i) The applicable interest rate; (ii) the sufficiency of the collateral pledged for each Loan; (iii) the financial condition of the Employer, in connection with the Guarantee, on at least a quarterly basis; and (iv) compliance with the 20% limitation for the Plan's maximum total Loan amount prior to approving each disbursement under the Loan Agreement; and
(h) The I/F takes whatever action is necessary to protect the Plan's interests, throughout the duration of the exemption, with respect to any Loan entered into under the exemption, if granted.
The exemption, if granted, will be temporary and will expire five (5) years from the date of publication in the
1. The Plan was established in 1979. As of December 31, 2002, the Plan had approximately 120 participants and beneficiaries and total assets of $8,602,918. The Plan is trusteed by Thomas P. Olson, James R. Olson and L. Ray Olson (the Olsons), who are owners and officers of the Employer. The Olsons also own approximately 45% of the outstanding interests in Revco.
2. The Employer is a closely-held corporation organized under the laws of the State of Utah. The Employer is engaged in the sale, leasing and maintenance of copiers, fax machines and digital and analog dictation equipment. The shareholders of the Employer are all members of the Olson family.
The Employer has facilities in the major metropolitan areas of Utah, which are Salt Lake City, Ogden, Provo and St. George. The Employer is in the business of purchasing office equipment and leasing such equipment to its customers. The Employer generally has not used outside financing in its operations and has supported itself from the revenues it generates.
In the year 2000, the Department granted a prohibited transaction exemption (see PTE 2000-03, at 65 FR 4854, February 1, 2000) for a series of loans (the Olson Loans), originated within a five-year period, by the Plan as well as the Les Olson Company, Inc. Money Purchase Plan (the M/P Plan;
The applicant represents that three (3) Olson Loans were made pursuant to the terms and conditions of PTE 2000-03. The dates and amounts of the Olson Loans, as well as their separate balances as of September 30, 2003, were as follows:
3. Revco was established by the owners of the Employer to facilitate the leasing aspect of its office equipment business. Revco purchases various types of office equipment (
4. The applicant proposes that the Plan make a series of Loans to Revco over a period of 5 years. The proceeds from the Loans will be used by Revco to purchase new Equipment from the Employer.
Each Loan will be collateralized by a promissory note and security agreement, duly perfected and properly recorded under applicable state law, which will provide that the Plan has a first lien on the Equipment. In addition, the Loan may be collateralized by Equipment Leases, if necessary to adequately secure such Loans. At all times, the fair market value of the property used as collateral for the Loans will be at least equal to 200% of the outstanding balance of such Loans. For this purpose, new Equipment will be valued at 80% of the invoice price, less taxes and transportation expenses. In addition, used Equipment and Equipment Leases that are pledged as collateral for the Loans will be valued in each case by an independent, qualified appraiser. The Loans will be guaranteed by the Employer.
5. Mr. Jack S. Emery (Mr. Emery) will serve as the independent, qualified appraiser for the Equipment used to secure Loan transactions described herein.
The applicant states that Mr. Emery is a qualified appraiser of office equipment who has over 20 years of experience in the business of leasing office equipment. In this regard, Mr. Emery was one of the founders of the Matrix Funding Corporation (Matrix). Matrix was a major office equipment leasing business from 1978 until 1998. In 1998, Matrix was sold and consolidated with 12 other leasing companies to form Unicapital, an office equipment leasing company.
Mr. Emery will appraise all of the Equipment used as collateral for the Loans on an annual basis. Mr. Emery states that he has valued numerous pieces of office equipment that are similar to, or the same as, the Equipment that will be used as collateral for the Loans. Mr. Emery represents that he is familiar with the useful life of this type of equipment, the rate at which it depreciates, and the market factors that may affect its value. In conducting appraisals of the Equipment, Mr. Emery will take into consideration all the relevant factors relating to the valuation of the Equipment and the market-place for such Equipment. In the event Equipment Leases are used as collateral for the Loans, Mr. Emery represents that he has the requisite expertise to value such Equipment Leases using commercially accepted methodologies.
Mr. Emery states that the Loans are cross-collateralized under the Loan Agreement. Under cross-collateralization, each Loan will have sufficient, separate collateral to maintain the required loan-to-value ratio. In the event of a default, the Plan will use any and all of the Equipment or Equipment Leases used as collateral to satisfy the outstanding debt. Mr. Emery states that a default under any Loan will be viewed as a default under all outstanding loans. Thus, the cross-collateralization feature for the Loans will provide the Plan with adequate security in the event of default.
Mr. Emery will verify that appropriate steps are taken to perfect the Plan's security interest in each piece of Equipment used as collateral. Mr. Emery represents that in order to perfect a security interest in the Equipment or Equipment Leases, an appropriate financing statement will be filed with the UCC Division of the Department of Commerce for the State of Utah.
6. The Employer will also guarantee each of the Loans (
7. The maximum length of any Loan will be five (5) years, under the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement. The interest rate on the Loans will be equal to the prime rate as of the date of closing, as quoted under “Money Rates” in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ Prime) plus two percentage points, and will be adjusted quarterly. Additionally, the interest rate of any Loan will be set at a higher rate if such higher rate represents the prevailing market rate for similar loans, as determined by Mr. Emery as the Plan's independent fiduciary, as discussed further below. In no event will any Loan bear an interest rate lower than the WSJ Prime plus two percentage points. Each Loan will be paid in equal monthly installments of principal and interest, with outstanding principal amortized over the remainder of the Loan Agreement's five (5) year term.
The outstanding balance of the Loans will never exceed 20% of the fair market value of the Plan's total assets.
8. Mr. Emery will serve as the independent fiduciary for the Plan (
Mr. Emery represents that he is qualified to act as an independent, qualified fiduciary with respect to the Loans, and that he understands his duties and responsibilities under the Act. In this regard, Mr. Emery states that he is currently serving as the I/F for the Plan for the Olson Loans made pursuant to PTE 2000-03. However, if this exemption is granted, Mr. Emery will also serve as the I/F for the Loans between Revco and the Plan. Mr. Emery maintains that his responsibilities under PTE 2000-03 and this exemption, if granted, are complementary. The security for the Loans involve the same type of equipment and essentially the same borrower as the Olson Loans. In addition, the Olson Loans and the Loans to Revco will have separate Loan Agreements that are substantially the same.
Mr. Emery states that while Revco is a separate legal entity, it has no employees and acts to facilitate the equipment leasing operations of the Employer. If this proposed exemption is granted, there will be no new Olson Loans under PTE 2000-03. All Loans that are in existence under both exemptions (
Mr. Emery represents that each new Loan will be evaluated independently. Mr. Emery states that the Loans will be sufficiently collateralized in accordance with the Loan documentation and the terms and conditions of the proposed exemption. Furthermore, each Loan will be separately accounted for and separately collateralized in accordance with the Loan Agreements. Under the security agreement, all collateral for any of the Loans must be used to satisfy any deficiency on the Loans in the event of default. Mr. Emery maintains that the sufficiency of the collateral will be assured and the Plan will be given the maximum protection for all the Loans, if there is a default under the terms of any Loan.
Mr. Emery represents that the Employer will be primarily liable under the Loan Agreements for both the Olson Loans and the Loans to Revco. Mr. Emery states that, in his capacity as the I/F, his responsibility will be to protect the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries. In default, Mr. Emery will assure repayment of all Loans (
Mr. Emery states that the two Loan Agreements are essentially identical. A default under one Loan will be a default under both Loan Agreements. Each of the Loans will be cross-collateralized. In the event that the Employer or Revco are unable to pay off the Loans, Mr. Emery will assure that the Plan is in a position to maximize the value of the collateral.
Mr. Emery states that he has been, and will continue to be, advised by a
9. Mr. Emery, as the I/F, represents that he will determine the appropriateness and suitability of each Loan for the Plan prior to the consummation of the Loan transaction. Mr. Emery will review the value of the Equipment and the Equipment Leases pledged to secure the Loans and confirm the sufficiency of the value of the collateral for each Loan.
Mr. Emery will ensure that the Loans are appropriate investments for the Plan. As the I/F, Mr. Emery will determine that the Loans are in the best interests of the Plan's participants and beneficiaries, and protective of their interests. Mr. Emery states that the terms of the Loans will be at least as favorable to the Plan as the terms that would be obtainable by the Plan in an arm's-length transaction with an unrelated party. Mr. Emery states that he will enforce the terms of each Loan including, but not limited to, making demand for timely payments from Revco or the Employer, bringing suit or other appropriate action against Revco or the Employer in the event of default, and monitoring the performance of each Loan and taking whatever actions are necessary to protect the interests of the Plan.
10. Mr. Emery, as the I/F, reserves the right under the I/F Agreement to hire independent advisors, as necessary to perform his duties. For example, Mr. Emery states that in the event of a foreclosure on the Equipment used as collateral, it may be necessary, for him to obtain legal advice from an independent, qualified legal counsel on the mechanics of such foreclosure.
11. With respect to the terms and conditions of the Loans, Wells Fargo Bank in Salt Lake City, Utah (Wells Fargo), has stated, in a letter dated March 2, 2004, that it would enter into similar loan transactions with Revco, under the same terms and conditions (including, among other things, the Guarantee of Revco's credit by the Employer). Wells Fargo has examined the terms of the Loans and concluded that such terms are at least as favorable to the Plan as those terms which the Plan could obtain in an arm's-length transaction with an unrelated party.
12. The Applicant represents that in the event the I/F needs to be replaced, the Department will be notified at least sixty (60) days prior to the appointment of a successor I/F (the Successor I/F). The Successor I/F will have the same duties and responsibilities as Mr. Emery has under the I/F Agreement, and will have experience and expertise that is substantially similar to that of Mr. Emery.
13. In summary, the applicant represents that the transactions will meet the statutory criteria of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code because:
(a) The interest rates paid to the Plan on the Loans will be at least as favorable to the Plan as the current market rate of interest that would be paid for similar loans;
(b) The Plan's interests with respect to the Loans will be represented by Mr. Emery, as the I/F. Mr. Emery will monitor the Loans, as well as the terms and conditions of the exemption (if granted), and will take all appropriate actions necessary to safeguard the interests of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries;
(c) Mr. Emery will determine that each Loan is in the best interests of the Plan's participants and beneficiaries at the time of the transaction;
(d) Mr. Emery will review and approve each Loan prior to making any disbursements of Loan amounts to Revco;
(e) The Loans will be secured at all times by the Equipment or Equipment Leases, which will be valued at an amount for each Loan that is not less than 200% of the outstanding principal balance of the Loan;
(f) The Loans will be guaranteed by the Employer, a creditworthy entity, whose financial condition will be reviewed on a quarterly basis by the I/F; and
(g) The aggregate outstanding balance of the Loans will not exceed 20% of the total value of the Plan's assets.
Ekaterina A. Uzlyan of the Department at (202) 693-8540 (This is not a toll-free number).
The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990). If the exemption is granted, the restrictions of section 406(a) and (b) of the Act shall not apply to the reinsurance of risks and the receipt of premiums therefrom by SCA Reinsurance Limited (SCA Re), through its USVI Branch, in connection with insurance contracts sold by Aetna, Inc. (Aetna), or any successor insurance company to Aetna which is unrelated to SCA, to provide long-term disability, accidental death and dismemberment, and basic and supplemental life insurance benefits to participants in programs maintained by SCA North America, Inc. (SCA North America) to provide such benefits to its employees (the Plans)
(a) SCA Re—
(1) Is a party in interest with respect to the Plans by reason of a stock or partnership affiliation with SCA that is described in section 3(14)(E) or (G) of the Act;
(2) Is licensed to sell insurance or conduct reinsurance operations in at least one State as defined in section 3(10) of the Act;
(3) Has obtained a Certificate of Authority from the Insurance Commissioner of its domiciliary state that has not been revoked or suspended;
(4)(A) Has undergone an examination by an independent certified public accountant for its last completed taxable year immediately prior to the taxable year of the reinsurance transaction; or
(B) Has undergone a financial examination (within the meaning of the law of its domiciliary State, the U.S. Virgin Islands)
(5) Is licensed to conduct reinsurance transactions by a State whose law requires that an actuarial review of reserves be conducted annually by an independent firm of actuaries and reported to the appropriate regulatory authority; and
(b) The Plans pay no more than adequate consideration for the insurance contracts;
(c) No commissions are paid by the Plans with respect to the direct sale of such contracts or the reinsurance thereof;
(d) In the initial year of any contract involving SCA Re, there will be an immediate and objectively determined benefit to the Plans' participants and beneficiaries in the form of increased benefits;
(e) In subsequent years, the formula used to calculate premiums by Aetna or
(f) The Plans only contract with insurers with a rating of A or better from A.M. Best Company. The reinsurance arrangement between the insurers and SCA Re will be indemnity insurance only,
(g) SCA Re retains an independent fiduciary (the Independent Fiduciary), at SCA North America's expense, to analyze the transactions and render an opinion that the requirements of sections (a) thorough (f) have been complied with. For purposes of this exemption, the Independent Fiduciary is a person who:
(1) Is not directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with SCA, SCA North America or SCA Re (this relationship hereinafter referred to as an “Affiliate”);
(2) Is not an officer, director, employee of, or partner in, SCA, SCA North America or SCA Re (or any Affiliate of either);
(3) Is not a corporation or partnership in which SCA, SCA North America or SCA Re has an ownership interest or is a partner;
(4) Does not have an ownership interest in SCA or SCA Re, or any of either's Affiliates;
(5) Is not a fiduciary with respect to the Plans prior to the appointment; and
(6) Has acknowledged in writing acceptance of fiduciary responsibility and has agreed not to participate in any decision with respect to any transaction in which the Independent Fiduciary has an interest that might affect its best judgment as a fiduciary.
For purposes of this definition of an “Independent Fiduciary,” no organization or individual may serve as an Independent Fiduciary for any fiscal year if the gross income received by such organization or individual (or partnership or corporation of which such individual is an officer, director, or 10 percent or more partner or shareholder) from SCA, SCA Re, or their Affiliates (including amounts received for services as Independent Fiduciary under any prohibited transaction exemption granted by the Department) for that fiscal year exceeds 5 percent of that organization or individual's annual gross income from all sources for such fiscal year.
In addition, no organization or individual who is an Independent Fiduciary, and no partnership or corporation of which such organization or individual is an officer, director, or 10 percent or more partner or shareholder, may acquire any property from, sell any property to, or borrow funds from SCA, SCA Re, or their Affiliates during the period that such organization or individual serves as Independent Fiduciary, and continuing for a period of six months after such organization or individual ceases to be an Independent Fiduciary, or negotiates any such transaction during the period that such organization or individual serves as Independent Fiduciary.
On August 7, 1979, the Department published a class exemption (Prohibited Transaction Exemption 79-41 (PTE 79-41), 44 FR 46365) that permits insurance companies that have substantial stock or partnership affiliations with employers establishing or maintaining employee benefit plans to make direct sales of life insurance, health insurance or annuity contracts which fund such plans if certain conditions are satisfied. In PTE 79-41, the Department stated its views that if a plan purchases an insurance contract from a company that is unrelated to the employer pursuant to an arrangement or understanding, written or oral, under which it is expected that the unrelated company will subsequently reinsure all or part of the risk related to such insurance with an insurance company which is a party in interest with respect to the plan, the purchase of the insurance contract would be a prohibited transaction under the Act.
The Department further stated that as of the date of publication of PTE 79-41, it had received several applications for exemption under which a plan or its employer would contract with an unrelated company for insurance, and the unrelated company would, pursuant to an arrangement or understanding, reinsure part or all of the risk with (and cede all or part of the premiums to) an insurance company affiliated with the employer maintaining the plan. The Department felt that it would not be appropriate to cover the various types of reinsurance transactions for which it had received applications within the scope of the class exemption, but would instead consider such applications on the merits of each individual case.
1. The applicants for this exemption are SCA, its subsidiary, SCA Re, and SCA Reinsurance Limited, USVI Branch. SCA is a multinational company based in Sweden that produces and sells absorbent hygiene products, packaging solutions and publication papers. In 2001, SCA established a United States business unit, SCA North America, comprised of various divisions in the United States and Canada.
2. SCA Re is a captive reinsurance corporation wholly-owned by SCA and organized in Ireland to assist in managing SCA's European risks. SCA Re was incorporated in Ireland on January 11, 1991. Ireland's Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (DETE) authorizes a reinsurer to conduct reinsurance business after the reinsurer notifies DETE of company details (such as shareholder or parent company identities, adequate capitalization, reasonableness of proposed reinsurance policies, and substance of its residence and management in Ireland), and the qualifications of each director and the general manager. DETE also requires reinsurance companies to have certain minimum paid-up share capital. SCA Re is in compliance with these requirements, and DETE has authorized SCA Re to conduct reinsurance business pursuant to these requirements.
In 2003, SCA Re established SCA Reinsurance Limited, USVI Branch (the SCA Re/USVI Branch) as a captive insurance organization licensed in the United States Virgin Islands (USVI), a State (as defined in ERISA section 3(10) of the Act), to insure SCA benefit plan risks. The SCA Re/USVI Branch was licensed by USVI to conduct insurance operations in the USVI effective November 24, 2003. The laws of USVI require that an actuarial review of reserves be conducted annually by an independent firm of actuaries and reported to USVI's Department of Banking and Insurance. Towers Perrin, an independent, qualified international actuarial and benefits consulting firm, has been retained to provide actuarial services to SCA Re/USVI Branch. The SCA Re/USVI Branch's accounting functions, records retention and other management and administrative services are expected to be performed by Marsh Management Services Limited, a company licensed as an insurance manager by USVI.
3. During 2001, SCA Re reinsured risks of SCA, accepted from fronting insurance companies, for property damage, business interruption,
4. Among other benefit plans, SCA maintains the following:
(i) SCA North America Incontinence Care and Corporate Life Insurance and Long-Term Disability Plan (the Inco and Corporate Plan);
(ii) SCA North America Packaging Life Insurance and Long-Term Disability Plan (the Tuscarora Plan); and
(iii) SCA Tissue North America Life Insurance and Long-Term Disability Plan (the Tissue Plan).
The Plans provide varying levels of accidental death and dismemberment insurance, life insurance, and long-term disability insurance to three groups of SCA's employees.
The Inco and Corporate Plan provides employer-paid basic life insurance, accidental death and dismemberment, and long-term disability benefits to approximately 260 employees, for approximately $150,000 in employer-paid premiums. The Inco and Corporate Plan also provides optional spouse and child life insurance coverage to approximately 140 employees for approximately $78,000 in employee-paid premiums.
The Tuscarora Plan provides employer-paid basic life insurance, accidental death and dismemberment to approximately 1890 employees for approximately $250,000 in employer-paid premiums. Approximately 475 employees are also provided employer-paid long-term disability benefits for approximately $120,000 in premiums. The Tuscarora Plan also offers optional supplemental coverage to approximately 100 employees for approximately $20,000 in employee-paid premiums.
The Tissue Plan provides employer-paid basic life insurance to approximately 2560 employees, and employer-paid long-term disability insurance to approximately 800 employees, for approximately $490,000 in total premiums. Employees covered by the Tissue Plan are also able to elect additional, employee-paid supplemental life insurance, accidental death and dismemberment insurance, and dependent supplemental life insurance. Approximately 980 employees have elected such coverages, for approximately $511,500 in employee-paid premiums.
The transaction resulting in the reinsurance of benefit plan risks by SCA Re/USVI Branch has a number of advantages for the Plans. Specifically, SCA will make substantial improvements to affected Plans. With respect to the Plans providing life insurance benefits (which are employer-paid, except for optional supplemental life insurance and coverage for dependents, which are employee-paid), SCA will increase employee life insurance, spouse and child life insurance, and basic accidental death and dismemberment benefits. Under the employer-paid basic life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance programs, maximum benefits have been increased and the formula for calculating the amount of employer-paid insurance has been revised to increase benefits for all of SCA's employees. With respect to disability benefits, the benefit enhancements include an increase in both monthly maximum disability benefits and the optional buy-up amount.
5. SCA plans to insure SCA North America's accidental death and dismemberment insurance, life insurance, and long-term disability benefit plan risks with Aetna, which will reinsure the risk through the SCA Re/USVI Branch. Aetna's overall financial strength is rated A by A.M. Best. Aetna is headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut.
Aetna will insure the Plans with the enhanced new benefits. Aetna will enter into a reinsurance agreement for 100% of SCA's benefit plan risk with SCA Re/USVI Branch. That is, Aetna would continue to directly insure the Plans' benefit risks, but SCA Re/USVI Branch would ultimately provide reinsurance coverage for the full amount of that risk. However, Aetna's reinsurance agreement will be “indemnity only”—that is, Aetna will not be relieved of its liability to the affected SCA Plans if any of its reinsurers are unable or unwilling to cover liability arising from the reinsurance arrangements.
In connection with the proposed transaction, SCA will pay no more than adequate consideration for the Plans' insurance contracts with Aetna or any successor insurer. The formula that Aetna and any successor insurer will use to calculate its premiums will be similar to the formulae used by other insurers providing similar insurance coverages under similar insurance programs. Moreover, the premium charge resulting from application of the formula will be reasonable and comparable to the premium charged by the insurer and its competitors with the same rating or better, providing the same coverage under comparable programs of insurance. Finally, the Plans will not pay any commissions in connection with the reinsurance transactions described herein.
6. In connection with this exemption request, SCA Re has engaged the services of U.S. Trust Company, National Association (U.S. Trust), as the Independent Fiduciary for the Plans. U.S. Trust is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Charles Schwab Corporation that provides various financial and special fiduciary services to clients, including employee benefit plans. Norman P. Goldberg (Mr. Goldberg), Managing Director, has signed the Independent Fiduciary's representations on behalf of U.S. Trust. U.S. Trust's consultants are frequently retained to provide specialized fiduciary decision-making services on behalf of employee benefit plans in connection with investment management, employer stock and ESOP transactions, pass-through voting and tender offer decision-making, and various plan transactions requiring exemptive relief, including captive insurance transactions.
7. For purposes of demonstrating independence, U.S. Trust has represented that:
(a) U.S. Trust is not an Affiliate of SCA, SCA Re, or USVI Branch;
(b) U.S. Trust is not an officer, director, employee of, or partners in SCA, SCA Re, or USVI Branch;
(c) U.S. Trust is not a corporation or partnership in which SCA, SCA Re, or USVI Branch has an ownership interest or is a partner;
(d) U.S. Trust does not have an ownership interest, other than a possible
(e) U.S. Trust was not a fiduciary to the Plans prior to its appointment in connection with the transactions described herein;
(f) Mr. Goldberg has acknowledged in writing, on behalf of U.S. Trust, his acceptance of fiduciary obligations, and has agreed not to participate in any decision with respect to any transaction in which U.S. Trust would have an interest that might affect his best judgment as a fiduciary, in acting on behalf of U.S. Trust, or the interests of U.S. Trust, as a corporate entity;
(g) The gross income received by U.S. Trust from SCA, SCA Re, SCA Re/USVI Branch and their Affiliates (including
(h) U.S. Trust, and any partnership or corporation of which U.S. Trust is an officer, director, or ten (10) percent or more partner or shareholder, will not acquire any property from, sell any property to, or borrow funds from SCA or SCA Re/USVI Branch while it is the Independent Fiduciary for the Plans and for a period of six months thereafter.
8. U.S. Trust represents that: (i) SCA Re/USVI Branch is licensed to do business in the USVI; and (ii) SCA Re has been conducting business since 1991 insuring and reinsuring property, casualty and employee benefit business. SCA Re's reserves for the past two (2) years have been reviewed by PWC, which is a firm independent of SCA Re and SCA. U.S. Trust has reviewed the report on the reserves and is satisfied that there are no issues to be resolved. In addition, U.S. Trust represents that future reserves will be reviewed by a qualified actuary approved by the USVI. U.S. Trust has confirmed that SCA Re has undergone an examination by PWC, an independent certified public accountant, for its last completed taxable year.
9. U.S. Trust has concluded that, as a result of the reinsurance agreement described in representation 5, above, the Plans' risks will be 100% covered by Aetna, a carrier rated A or better by A.M. Best, even if SCA Re/USVI Branch is unable or unwilling to cover the Plans' liabilities it is assuming as a result of the reinsurance agreement. U.S. Trust represents that it has reviewed the terms of the proposed reinsurance agreement between Aetna and SCA Re/USVI Branch. U.S. Trust states that the agreement provides for the risk retained by SCA Re/USVI Branch to revert back to Aetna at no further cost to the Plans should SCA Re/USVI Branch be unable or unwilling to pay the benefits.
10. U.S. Trust has represented that it reviewed the Plans' benefits before the reinsurance transaction and the benefits implemented in anticipation of the reinsurance transaction. U.S. Trust has concluded that there is an immediate benefit to the Plans' participants from the reinsurance transaction. All participants in the Plans will receive increased benefits and options. Specifically, under the long-term disability programs, the proposed benefit changes improve disability benefits and add buy-up options, in some cases, allowing employees to purchase additional benefits. Under the employer-paid basic life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance programs, maximum benefits have been increased and the formula for calculating the amount of employer-paid insurance has been revised to increase benefits for all of SCA's employees. With respect to voluntary life insurance, rates have been reduced for most employees and additional options have been added to some programs, such as spouse and child life insurance. Where programs already offered voluntary spouse and child life insurance, the maximum benefit amounts have been increased. As a result, U.S. Trust concluded that the enhancements represent an immediate benefit to the Plans' participants from the reinsurance transaction.
11. U.S. Trust makes the following representations concerning the determination of the initial premium to the Plans under the proposed arrangement. The Plans contacted Aetna and were quoted a rate based on Aetna's evaluation of the risk. SCA received quotes from five different companies to provide insurance coverage for the programs. From these five companies, SCA selected Aetna, which was somewhat higher than some of its competitors with respect to its life insurance premiums, but most competitive with respect to its disability premiums, making Aetna's entire package the best choice for SCA Re. The premium paid to SCA Re/USVI Branch is based on a reinsurance agreement where SCA Re/USVI Branch receives a portion of the premium charged equal to the proportion of the risk that SCA Re/USVI Branch covers. This is a typical reinsurance arrangement for life and long-term disability products. U.S. Trust represents that, based upon its review, the premiums charged by Aetna are calculated according to a formula that is reasonable. In addition, U.S. Trust states that the premiums are similar to premiums charged by other insurers with the same or better rating providing similar life and long-term disability insurance under comparable programs. The applicants represent that the Independent Fiduciary (
12. U.S. Trust will represent the interests of the Plans as the Independent Fiduciary at all times.
13. The applicants represent that the proposed reinsurance transaction will meet the following conditions of PTE 79-41 covering direct insurance transactions:
(a) SCA Re is a party in interest with respect to the Plans (within the meaning of section 3(14)(G) of the Act) by reason of a stock affiliation with SCA, which maintains the Plans.
(b) SCA Re is licensed to conduct reinsurance transactions by the USVI, through its branch, SCA Re/USVI Branch. The law under which USVI Branch is licensed requires that an actuarial review of reserves be conducted annually by an independent firm of actuaries and reported to the appropriate regulatory authority;
(c) SCA Re has undergone an examination by the independent certified public accounting firm of PWC for its last completed taxable year;
(d) SCA Re, through its branch, SCA Re/USVI Branch, has received a Certificate of Authority from its domiciliary state, USVI, which has not been revoked or suspended;
(e) The Plans will pay no more than adequate consideration for the insurance. In addition, in the initial year of the proposed reinsurance transaction, there will be an immediate and objectively determined benefit to the Plans' participants and beneficiaries in the form of increased benefits; and
(f) No commissions will be paid by the Plans with respect to the reinsurance arrangement with SCA Re, as described herein.
In addition, the Plans' interests will be represented by a qualified, independent fiduciary (
14. In summary, the applicants represent that the proposed reinsurance transactions will meet the criteria of section 408(a) of the Act because: (a) The Plans' participants and beneficiaries are afforded insurance protection by Aetna, a carrier rated A or better by A.M. Best, at competitive market rates arrived at through arm's-length negotiations; (b) SCA Re, which will enter into the reinsurance agreements with Aetna, is a sound, viable insurance company that has been in business since the 1850s (though it incorporated into its present form in December 2000); (c) the protections described in representation 13, above, provided to the Plans and their participants and beneficiaries under the proposed reinsurance transactions are based on those required for direct insurance by a “captive” insurer, under the conditions of PTE 79-41 (notwithstanding certain other requirements related to, among other things, the amount of gross premiums or annuity considerations received from customers who are not related to, or affiliated with, the insurer);
Specifically, section 404(a)(1) of the Act requires, among other things, that a plan fiduciary act prudently, solely in the interest of the plan's participants and beneficiaries, and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and beneficiaries when making investment decisions on behalf of the plan. In this regard, the Department is not providing any opinion as to whether a particular insurance or investment product, strategy or arrangement would be considered prudent or in the best interests of a plan, as required by section 404 of the Act. The determination of the prudence of a particular product or arrangement must be made by a plan fiduciary after appropriate consideration to those facts and circumstances that, given the scope of such fiduciary's investment duties, the fiduciary knows or should now are relevant to the particular product or arrangement involved, including the plan's potential exposure to losses and the role a particular insurance or investment product plays in that portion of the plan's investment portfolio with respect to which the fiduciary has investment duties and responsibilities (see 29 CFR 250.404a-1).
SCA will provide notice of the proposed exemption to all of its affected benefit Plan participants by posting copies of the proposed exemption (as published in the
Gary H. Lefkowitz of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8546. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of the Act, which, among other things, require a fiduciary to discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(b) of the Act; nor does it affect the requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) Before an exemption may be granted under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, the Department must find that the exemption is administratively feasible, in the interests of the plan and of its participants and beneficiaries, and protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of the plan;
(3) The proposed exemptions, if granted, will be supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transitional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and
(4) The proposed exemptions, if granted, will be subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in each application are true and complete, and that each application accurately describes all material terms of the transaction which is the subject of the exemption.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 12, 2004, in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Burlington Industries, Hurt, Virginia.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 26, 2004, in response to a petition filed by the company on behalf of workers at Cross Creek Apparel LLC, Division of Russell Corporation, Mount Airy, North Carolina.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 22, 2004, in response to a petition filed by the company on behalf of workers at E-Z-Go Textron, Augusta, Georgia.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on March 18, 2004, in response to a worker petition which was filed on behalf of workers at Eureka Security Printing, Jessup, Pennsylvania (TA-W-54,551).
The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 12, 2004, in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Flexfab LLC, a division of Flexfab Horizon International, Albion, Indiana.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation would serve no purpose and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 26, 2004, in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Forrest Consultants, Inc.
The investigation revealed that the subject firm did not separate or threaten to separate a significant number or proportion of workers as required by section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. Significant number or proportion of the workers means that at least three workers in a firm with a workforce of fewer than 50 workers would have to be affected. Separations by the subject firm did not meet this threshold level; consequently the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 17, 2004, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Gates Corporation, Air Springs Division, Denver, Colorado.
The workers of the subject firm are covered by an active certification that was issued on December 15, 2003, and which remains in effect (TA-W-53,647) through December 15, 2005. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 30, 2004, in response to a petition filed by the United Steelworkers of America (USWA), Local 4377, on behalf of workers of General Electric, Coshocton, Ohio.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation would serve no purpose and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 1, 2004, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of General Electric Consumer Finance, Canton, Ohio.
The petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition filed on March 24, 2004 (TA-W-54,572), that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. Further investigation in this case would duplicate efforts and serve no purpose; therefore the investigation under this petition has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 26, 2004, in response to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers at Global Farm Enterprises, Inc., San Joaquin, California.
The petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition filed on March 5, 2004 (TA-W-54,553), that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. Further investigation in this case would duplicate efforts and serve no purpose; therefore the investigation under this petition has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 29, 2004, in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Jockey International, Inc., Mt. Sterling, Kentucky (TA-W-54,611), Jockey International, Inc., Carlisle, Kentucky (TA-W-54,611A), and Jockey International, Inc., Maysville, Kentucky (TA-W-54,611B).
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation would serve no purpose and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 17, 2004, in response to a petition filed by a community representative on behalf of workers at Mountain Manufacturing & Distribution, Bend, Oregon.
The petitioner has withdrawn the petition. Consequently, this investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on March 3, 2004, in response to a worker petition which was filed on behalf of workers at Plastic Components, Inc., Germantown, Wisconsin.
The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 1, 2004, in response to a worker petition filed by a state agency on behalf of workers at Precision Interconnect, a division Tyco Electronics, Wilsonville, Oregon.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 1, 2004, in response to a worker petition filed by a State agency representative on behalf of workers at PSC Metals, Inc., Cleveland Office, Cleveland, Ohio.
The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active certification issued on October 3, 2003, and which remains in effect (TA-W-52,684). Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 27, 2004, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Roaring and Cumberland Manufacturing, Sparta, Tennessee.
The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 6, 2004, in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Robert Bosch Tool Corporation, Leitchfield, Kentucky.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 16, 2004, in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Snow River Products, Crandon, Wisconsin.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 7, 2004, in response to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers at Sony Electronics, Projection Television Picture Tube Division, Mt. Pleasant, Pennsylvania.
An active certification covering the petitioning group of workers remains in effect (TA-W-40,757A). Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose; and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 16, 2004, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Tri-Star Precision, Inc., Gilberts, Illinois.
The petition regarding the investigation has been deemed invalid. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.
Institute of Museum and Library Services.
Notice of Requests for Information Collection, Submission for OMB Review.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services announces the following information collection has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 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 the proposed forms may be obtained by calling the Institute of Museum and Library Services, Director of Research and Technology, Rebecca Danvers at (202) 606-2478. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY/TDD) may call (202) 606-8636.
Comments must be received by June 3, 2004. 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,
For a copy of the form contact: Rebecca Danvers, Director of Research and Technology, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room 223, Washington, DC 20506.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services is an independent Federal grant-making agency authorized by the Museum and Library Services Act, Pub. L. 104-208, as amended. The IMLS provides a variety of grant programs to assist the nation's museums and libraries in improving their operations and enhancing their services to the public. Museums and libraries of all sizes and types may receive support from IMLS programs.
The Museum and Library Services Act includes a strong emphasis on supporting library services through the use of technology, on assisting museums in their educational role, and in modernizing their methods and facilities. This survey will assist IMLS in understanding the current status and capacity of museums and libraries to use digitization and technology to deliver educational resources to students, life-long learners, underserved populations, and the general public.
Pub. L. 104-208 enacted on September 30, 1996, as amended, contains the Library Services and Technology Act and the Museum Services Act.
Pub. L. 104-208 authorizes the Director of the Institute of Museum and Library Services to make grants to States, and to Indian tribes and to organizations that primarily serve and represent Native Hawaiians for—
(1) Expanding services for learning and access to information and educational resources in a variety of formats, in all types of libraries, for individuals of all ages;
(2) Developing library services that provide all users access to information through local, State, regional, national, and international electronic networks;
(3) Providing electronic and other linkages among and between all types of libraries;
(4) Developing public and private partnerships with other agencies and community-based organizations;
(5) Targeting library services to individuals of diverse geographic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds, to individuals with disabilities, and to individuals with limited functional literacy or information skills; and
(6) Targeting library and information services to persons having difficulty using a library and to understand urban and rural communities, including children (from birth through age 17) from families with incomes below the poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget and revised annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) applicable to a family of the size involved.
Pub. L. 104-208 also provides authority for the Director to make grants, and to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements for activities that may include
(1) Education, recruitment, and training of persons in library and information science, particularly in areas of new technology and other critical needs, including graduate fellowships, traineeships, institutes and other programs.
(2) Research and demonstration projects related to the improvement of libraries, education in library and information science, enhancement of library services through effective and efficient use of new technologies, and dissemination of information derived from such projects;
(3) Preserving or digitization of library materials and resources, giving priority to projects emphasizing coordination, avoidance of duplication, and access by researchers beyond the institution of library entity undertaking the project; and
(4) Model programs demonstrating cooperative efforts between libraries and museums.
Pub. L. 104-208 also provides authority for the Director to make grants to museums, and to Indian tribes and to organizations that primarily serve and represent Native Hawaiians for activities such as—
(1) Supporting museums in providing learning and access to collections, information, and educational resources in a variety of formats (including exhibitions, programs, publications, and websites) for individuals of all ages;
(2) supporting museums in building learning partnerships with the Nation's
(3) supporting museums in assessing, conserving, researching, maintaining, and exhibiting their collections, and in providing educational programs to the public through the use of their collections;
(4) stimulating greater collaboration among museums, libraries, schools, and other community organizations in order to share resources and strengthen communities;
(5) encouraging the use of new technologies and broadcast media to enhance access to museum collections, programs, and services;
(6) supporting museums in providing services to people of diverse geographic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds and to individuals with disabilities;
(7) supporting museums in developing and carrying out specialized programs for specific segments of the public, such as programs for urban neighborhoods, rural areas, Indian reservations, and State institutions;
(8) supporting professional development and technical assistance programs to enhance museum operations at all levels, in order to ensure the highest standards in all aspects of museum operations;
(9) supporting museums in research, program evaluation, and the collection and dissemination of information to museum professionals and the public; and
(10) encouraging, supporting, and disseminating model programs of museum and library collaboration.
The Director is also authorized to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with appropriate entities to strengthen museum services.
One of the core duties of the Institute of Museum and Library Services, as stated in its strategic plan, is to create and sustain a nation of learners by building the capacity of libraries and museums. This goal will be accomplished in part by promoting access to learning and information resources held by museums and libraries through electronic linkages. IMLS is seeking assistance in developing specific plans to collect information from the U.S. library, museum and archive communities to assess their digitization readiness and technological capacity. A great deal of information has been collected on the Internet access of libraries for internal and public access. The information IMLS collects should build on but not duplicate existing or ongoing collections.
Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-438) defines an abnormal occurrence (AO) as an unscheduled incident or event which the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) determines to be significant from the standpoint of public health or safety. The Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-66) requires that AOs be reported to Congress annually. During fiscal year 2003, 14 events that occurred at facilities licensed or otherwise regulated by the NRC and/or Agreements States were determined to be AOs. The report describes five medical events at facilities licensed by the NRC. Three events involved patients undergoing therapeutic brachytherapy treatments, one event involved an unintentional therapeutic dose of sodium iodide (I-131) to an embryo/fetus, and one event involved a diagnostic overexposure of a minor. The report also discusses nine AOs at facilities licensed by Agreement States. Agreement States are those states which have entered into a formal agreement with the NRC pursuant to Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) to regulate certain quantities of AEA material at facilities located within their borders. Currently, there are 33 Agreement States. Seven Agreement State events were medical events (five therapeutic and two diagnostic), one Agreement State event involved overexposure to a radiographer, and one Agreement State event involved overexposure to members of the public from a damaged gauge. As required by Section 208, the discussion for each event includes the date and place, the nature and probable consequences, the cause or causes, and the action taken to prevent recurrence. Each event is also being described in NUREG-0090, Vol. 26, “Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences, Fiscal Year 2003.” This report will be available electronically at the NRC Web site
During this period, no events occurred at U.S. nuclear power plants that were significant enough to be reported as AOs.
During this period, no events occurred at U.S. fuel cycle facilities that were significant enough to be reported as AOs.
The NRC determined that the following events which occurred at facilities, licensed or otherwise regulated by the NRC, during this reporting period were significant enough to be reported as AOs:
After the end of the treatment, the radiation oncologist was unable to retrieve all of the Sr-90 radioactive sources. After a second attempt to retrieve the sources failed, the oncologist pulled the treatment catheter from the patient and placed it in the bailout box. The bailout box is an acrylic box approximately 12 inches (in) by 10 in by 6 in with a hinged acrylic lid. Acrylic is used because of its shielding properties to attenuate the beta radiation from the catheter system. While inspecting the catheter, the oncologist discovered a kink at the location wherein the distal seed and marker became lodged. The kink was attributed to the patient's anatomy (small curves in the blood vessel, branching off the aorta where the catheter was inserted). A review of the cinematography images revealed that only one Sr-90 seed reached the intended treatment site while 5 seeds were positioned in the beginning LAD and 10 seeds were outside the cinematography field of view. Instead of receiving the intended 18.4 Gy (1,840 rads), the LAD received approximately 1.25 Gy (125 rads). The remaining dose was delivered to an unintended section of the LAD and aorta. No adverse effects due to this medical event are expected.
This event is closed for the purpose of this report.
03-02 Dose to Fetus at Community Hospital of Anderson in Anderson, Indiana
The NRC staff contracted with a medical consultant to review the possible deterministic effects of the dose to the embryo/fetus as a result of the event. The medical report indicated that the total effective dose equivalent (whole body) to the embryo/fetus was approximately 0.074 Gy (7.4 rads) and the committed dose equivalent to the embryo/fetal thyroid was approximately 278 Gy (27,800 rads). The licensee anticipated that the fetal thyroid would be ablated. The NRC medical consultant, contracted to review this event, also anticipated that the fetal thyroid would be ablated.
This event is closed for the purpose of this report.
In documenting the treatment, the licensee reviewed the films taken during the treatment and printed a copy of the films for the patient's record. During this documentation, the medical physicist noted that the source markers were not in the right position and suspected that the treatment area was not covered for the first treatment given. The radiation oncologist and interventional cardiologist reviewed the films and determined that the source train was approximately 40 millimeters (mm) (1.6 in) away from the intended treatment site. Therefore, the 23 Gy (2,300 rads) dose was delivered to an unintended treatment site.
The NRC contracted a medical consultant to review the medical event and assess the probable deterministic
This event is closed for the purpose of this report.
03-04 Iodine-125 (I-125) Brachytherapy Seed Medical Event at Guthrie Healthcare System in Sayre, Pennsylvania
This event is considered open for the purpose of this report.
03-05 Diagnostic Medical Event at Deaconess Hospital, Evansville, Indiana
This event is considered closed for the purpose of this report.
The NRC determined that the following events, which occurred at Agreement State licensed facilities during this reporting period, were significant enough for reporting as AOs:
This event is considered closed for the purpose of this report.
This event is closed for the purposes of this report.
The circumstances of the event, as reported by the technician, are that both the exterior lead container and the syringe were labeled as containing a diagnostic unit dose of Tl-201. Although the injection occurred the previous day, it was not determined that I-131 was involved until the morning of July 29, 2003. Service engineers were called to the site on both days to inspect the gamma cameras used after attempts to image the patient failed. The reason became evident when a gamma camera flood source that had been made from what was thought to be the remaining Tl-201 material in the syringe from July 29 showed peaks consistent with I-131, rather than the expected Tl-201. The syringe had been assayed by the medical center before injection. The assayed amount showed the dose to be within the prescribed range for a typical 148 MBq (4 mCi) Tl-201 diagnostic administration.
On Friday, July 25, 2003, the nuclear pharmacy received an order for five unit dose syringes of I-131 for the Veterinary Service Center (VSC) and two unit dose syringes of Tl-201 for Rush Copley Medical Center. When the computer generated orders and associated labels were segregated, one of the prescriptions for the Tl-201 was mistakenly substituted for I-131. The pharmacist did not realize the error and the I-131 dose (syringe) and its container were labeled with one of the Tl-201 labels generated for the original order. On Monday, July 28, 2003, the pharmacy facility manager noted that only four I-131 prescriptions had been filled for VSC. Assuming the I-131 dose had not been filled with the others the previous Friday, July 25, 2003, he filled an additional syringe with I-131 to complete the order for VSC.
The medical center estimates that a small amount of residual activity remained adhered to the walls of the syringe. Therefore, it estimates the amount of injected I-131 to be 148 MBq (4 mCi). Based on the package insert information for this material and assuming that an injected sodium iodide solution of I-131 results in a radiation absorbed dose similar to oral administration and that the patient had normal thyroid function (25% uptake), the dose to the patient's thyroid is approximately 51.95 Gy (5,195 rads).
The medical center technician indicated that the patient involved had been contacted by the referring physician, onsite oncologists, and the medical center's administrator and lawyer and was informed as to what had happened at the initial time of discovery of the event. Later, a copy of the medical center's report to the agency was also provided to the patient. The medical center offered to perform routine blood analysis throughout the year to monitor any changes in thyroid activity. The patient had been advised as to the potential health effects of the medical event during that time and the need for routine followup testing. The patient has not returned to the medical center for any additional testing, diagnosis, or consultation.
The medical center's oncologist indicated that it is very unlikely that any medical changes will be noted in the patient because the dose administered is only slightly larger than that typically ordered for whole body scans using I-131. Blood tests were taken immediately following the discovery of the event. Those tests suggest that the patient was hypothyroid as a preexisting condition to admittance.
This event is considered closed for the purpose of this report.
The incorrect placement of the source in the catheter was detected on June 11, 2003, between treatment fractions 5 and
The attending physician, who was present during treatment, followed the patient's progress for any needed medical intervention due to exposure to the HDR source. The patient's erythema of the skin failed to heal and developed into an ulceration. The ulceration was surgically excised by the referring physician. After excision, the area fully healed within a period of approximately two months. The patient continues to be monitored by the referring physician.
This event is closed for the purposes of this report.
It was determined that the Planner occupied the desk for approximately 50 to 60 hours and received a whole body dose of approximately 400 mSv (40 rem). This determination was based on an analysis of the Planner's schedule and work habits together with the radiation dose rate of the source. The technician who carried the source to the Planner's desk received an extremity dose of approximately 18,000 mSv (1,800 rem) to the hand. Reenactments were performed to estimate the exposures to 100 individuals employed by the plant. The estimates were determined by the time spent and proximity to the source. The highest exposure was estimated to be 740 mSv (74 rem) and the next highest exposure 180 mSv (18 rem). Altogether, 42 nonradiation workers exceeded the 1 mSv (0.1 rem) exposure limit to members of the general public. The workers are considered to be members of the public, and not radiation workers, because they are not exposed to radiation from licensed radioactive material as a normal part of their work. Others may have also been exposed at lower levels. Blood tests were performed for seven individuals, but revealed no cell changes. No one has shown signs of sickness or erythema.
The licensee contacted the Radiological Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site (REAC/TS) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and requested its assistance in having a cytogenetic blood study performed for the Planner. The licensee reported that it appears that vibration of the gauge caused the source holder and the attached source to fall. Surveys of the relevant areas and wipe tests on the source did not reveal any source leakage.
This event is closed for the purpose of this report.
An unintended area of the prostate gland received approximately 1.4 Gy (140 rads) due to seeds implanted outside of the intended cancer cell site. The licensee determined that 31% of the bladder received 72 Gy (7,200 rads) and 3% of the rectum received 72 Gy (7,200 rads).
This event is closed for the purpose of this report.
This event is closed for the purpose of this report.
The dose to the patient was calculated to be 0.03 Gy (3 rads) to the whole body and 38.7 Gy (3,870 rads) to the thyroid. No adverse health effects are expected.
This event is closed for the purposes of this report.
The medical events were reported to two authorized users and three referring physicians. Notification of the medical event was provided to nine of the patients or patients' responsible guardians and they were subsequently provided a copy of the report pertinent to that patient. The authorized user does not anticipate any change in the patient's condition from the additional exposure. The licensee's authorized users noted that these doses are still within the published literature. During the notifications it was discovered that one of the patients had died as a result of the patient's disease. The licensee's authorized users stated that this patient was given palliative treatment for four metastatic lesions that were not close to any critical structure. The patient died approximately 2 months after the treatment, which was the typical period of life expectancy for a patient with this type and stage of disease.
This event is closed for the purpose of this report.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is in receipt of and is making available for public inspection and comment the License Termination Plan (LTP) for the Yankee (Rowe) Atomic Power Station (Yankee-Rowe) located in Franklin County, Massachusetts.
Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC, or the licensee) informed the NRC by letter dated February 27, 1992, that Yankee-Rowe was permanently shut down and that decommissioning would commence. YAEC submitted a decommission plan on December 20, 1993, which included an environmental report. The decommissioning plan was approved by Order on February 14, 1995, and the plant is undergoing dismantlement under 10 CFR 50.59.
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(9), all power reactor licensees must submit an application for termination of their license. The application for termination of license must be accompanied or preceded by an LTP to be submitted for NRC approval. If found acceptable by the NRC staff, the LTP is approved by license amendment, subject to such conditions and limitations as the NRC staff deems appropriate and necessary. YAEC submitted the proposed LTP for Yankee-Rowe by applications dated November 24, 2003, December 10, 2003, December 16, 2003, January 19, 2004, January 20, 2004, February 2, 2004, February 10, 2004, and March 4, 2004. In accordance with 10 CFR 20.1405 and 10 CFR 50.82(a)(9)(iii), the NRC is providing notice to individuals in the vicinity of the site that the NRC is in receipt of the Yankee-Rowe LTP, and will accept comments from affected parties.
An electronic version of the Yankee-Rowe LTP may be viewed through the NRC ADAMS system at accession numbers ML033450398, ML033530147, ML041110261, ML040280024, ML040280028, ML040280031, ML040280036, ML040280140, ML040330777, ML040420388, ML041100639, and ML040690034, or at the Yankee Atomic Power Company site closure Web site,
Comments regarding the Yankee-Rowe LTP may be submitted in writing and addressed to Mr. John B. Hickman, Mail Stop T-7-F27, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-3017 or e-mail
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of May 3, 10, 17, 24, 31, June 7, 2004.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and closed.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address,
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address,
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address,
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of May 17, 2004.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address,
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address,
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of June 7, 2004.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)—(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Dave Gamberoni, (301) 415-1651.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301) 415-1969. In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form N-8B-2-Registration Statement of Unit Investment Trusts that are Currently Issuing Securities.
Form N-8B-2 is the form used by unit investment trusts (“UITs”) that are currently issuing securities, including UITs that are issuers of periodic payment plan certificates and UITs of which a management investment company is the sponsor or depositor, to comply with the filing and disclosure requirements imposed by section 8(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-8(b)). Form N-8B-2 requires disclosure about the organization of a UIT, its securities, the trustee, the personnel and affiliated persons of the depositor, the distribution and redemption of securities, and financial statements. The Commission uses the information provided in the collection of information to determine compliance with section 8(b) of the Investment Company Act.
Based on the Commission's industry statistics, the Commission estimates that there would be approximately one initial filing on Form N-8B-2 and 11 post-effective amendment filings to the Form. The Commission estimates that each registrant filing an initial Form N-8B-2 would spend 44 hours in preparing and filing the Form and that the total hour burden for all initial Form N-8B-2 filings would be 44 hours. Also, the Commission estimates that each UIT filing a post-effective amendment to Form N-8B-2 would spend 16 hours in preparing and filing the amendment and that the total hour burden for all post-effective amendments to the Form would be 176 hours. By combining the total hour burdens estimated for initial Form N-8B-2 filings and post-effective amendments filings to the Form, the Commission estimates that the total annual burden hours for all registrants on Form N-8B-2 would be 220. Estimates of the burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the PRA, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of SEC rules and forms.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Nasdaq proposes to modify NASD Rule 4619 to correct a typographical error in the rule text.
Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is
(a)-(b) No change
(c) Excused withdrawal status based on circumstances beyond the market maker's control, other than systemic equipment problems, may be granted for up to five (5) business days, unless extended by Nasdaq MarketWatch. Excused withdrawal status based on demonstrated legal or regulatory requirements, supported by appropriate documentation and accompanied by a representation that the condition necessitating the withdrawal of quotations is not permanent in nature, may, upon notification, be granted for not more than sixty (60) days (unless such request is required to be made pursuant to paragraph [(d)](
(1)-(3) No change
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change seeks to correct a typographical error in NASD Rule 4619(c). The cross reference to “paragraph (d)” in NASD Rule 4619(c) should be deleted and replaced with a cross reference to “paragraph (e)” to reflect a previously approved rule change adding a new paragraph (b).
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 15A of the Act,
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing proposal has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
All submissions should refer to File Number NASD-2004-063. This file number should be included on the
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
In accordance with a notice received from the Department of Homeland Security—Federal Emergency Management Agency, effective April 14, 2004, the above numbered declaration is hereby amended to establish the incidence period as beginning on April 8, 2004, and continuing through April 14, 2004.
All other information remains the same,
As a result of the President's major disaster declaration for Public Assistance on April 10, 2004, and Amendment 2 adding Individual Assistance on April 27, 2004, I find that the State of Yap, located within the Federated States Of Micronesia, constitutes a disaster area due to damages caused by Typhoon Sudal occurring on April 8, 2004, and continuing through April 14, 2004. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on June 28, 2004, and for economic injury until the close of business on January 27, 2005, at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 4 Office, P.O. Box 419004, Sacramento, CA 95841-9004.
The interest rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 357408 and for economic injury the number is 9ZA900.
Small Business Administration.
Notice of intent to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is considering granting a waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing. The basis for waivers is that no small business manufacturers are supplying these classes of products to the Federal government. The effect of a waiver would be to allow otherwise qualified regular dealers to supply the products of any domestic manufacturer on a Federal contract set aside for small businesses or awarded through the SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program.
Comments and sources must be submitted on or before May 14, 2004.
Edith Butler, Program Analyst, by telephone at (202) 619-0422; by FAX at (202) 205-7280; or by e-mail at
Section 8(a)(17) of the Small Business Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17), requires that recipients of Federal contracts set aside for small businesses or SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program provide the product of a small business manufacturer or processor, if the recipient is other than the actual manufacturer or processor of the product.
This requirement is commonly referred to as the Nonmanufacturer Rule. The SBA regulations imposing this requirement are found at 13 CFR 121.406(b). Section 8(a)(17)(b)(iv) of the Act authorizes SBA to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for any “class of products” for which there are no small business manufacturers or processors available to participate in the Federal market.
As implemented in SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.1204, in order to be considered available to participate in the Federal market for a class of products, a small business manufacturer must have submitted a proposal for a contract solicitation or received a contract from the Federal government within the last 24 months. The SBA defines “class of products” based on six digit coding systems. The first coding system is the Office of Management and Budget North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The
The SBA received a request on April 16, 2004, to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing. In response, SBA is currently processing a request to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 331315. The public is invited to comment or provide source information to SBA on the proposed waiver of the nonmanufacturer rule for this NAICS code.
15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17).
Social Security Administration (SSA).
Notice of social security ruling.
In accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1), the Commissioner of Social Security gives notice of Social Security Ruling, SSR-04-1p. This Ruling expands the Agency's policies to use attestation as an alternate signature method for SSA applications for benefits. The Agency will extend attestation, without further notice, to other processes as we gain experience and as we deem appropriate. The use of attestation as an alternate signing method will facilitate SSA's use of electronic records in lieu of paper records and increase its electronic processing.
May 4, 2004.
Lola Doyle, Office of Income Security Programs, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 965-5899.
Although we are not required to do so pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2), we are publishing this Social Security Ruling in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).
Social Security Rulings make available to the public precedential decisions relating to the Federal Old-age, Survivors, Disability, Supplemental Security Income, and Black Lung benefits programs. Social Security Rulings may be based on case decisions, Commissioner's decisions, opinions of the Office of the General Counsel, and policy interpretations of the law and regulations.
Although Social Security Rulings do not have the same force and effect as the statute or regulations, they are binding on all components of the Social Security Administration, in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1), and are to be relied upon as precedents in adjudicating cases.
If this Social Security Ruling is later suspended, modified, or rescinded, we will publish a notice in the
The Agency regulations require that one of certain prescribed persons signs an application for Social Security or Supplemental Security Income benefits in order to establish a valid claim for benefits. To satisfy this signing requirement, SSA has long required a pen-and-ink signature on paper applications. SSA's procedures also permit the use of a pen-and-ink mark on the application in place of the individual's signature provided the mark is witnessed and such witnessing is documented in the claims record. Even for the existing Agency Web site application for benefits, SSA currently requires an applicant to submit a signed and completed paper application.
SSA regulations regarding requests for administrative appeals and withdrawals require that such requests be “written” or “in writing.” SSA has interpreted these regulations as also requiring a signature or signing.
In 1996, SSA established policy formally interpreting its authority to accept alternate means of signing under its regulations. SSR 96-10p dated December 30, 1996, established a policy authorizing the use of approved electronic or digital signature technologies in lieu of the pen-and-ink signature. SSA established this authority as part of a broader policy authorizing the Agency's use of electronic documents and records in lieu of paper records. SSR 96-10p further expands the definition of a “signature” to include electronic and digital signature methods. SSR 96-10p remains in effect and is consistent with this ruling.
In August 2002, SSA clarified its procedures for the review and approval of electronic and digital signature technologies. In a
The purpose of this ruling is to notify the public of the Agency's adoption of attestation as an alternative to the pen-and-ink signature to facilitate SSA's use of electronic records in lieu of paper records and to increase its electronic processing. For SSA purposes, attestation is defined as the actions taken by a SSA employee in confirming
The attestation as a signature or signing eliminates the need for claims interviewers to retain the systems-generated paper applications, electronic appeal request forms, or electronic withdrawal request forms as proof that individuals applied for benefits, submitted an appeal, or requested withdrawal of their application. Instead, the claims interviewer documents SSA's records that the applicant “signed” these forms.
The Agency expects that there will be situations where attestation cannot be used. Alternatively, SSA will require an applicant to affix his or her pen-and-ink signature or mark to the summary printout or completed paper application. The Agency's electronic claims file will be annotated that the application was signed with a pen-and-ink signature. The applicant will be informed that the paper printout/application will no longer be retained by SSA, and the applicant will have the option of keeping the application for his or her records. However, in rare instances where we are unable to take a claim on the system, (
Based on the Agency's broad statutory authority to develop appropriate procedures for claims processing and its established policy concerning alternate signature methods, SSA has also approved the use of an electronic signature for individuals who file applications via the Internet at the SSA website. At the conclusion of the Internet Social Security Benefit Application, the individual will establish the fact that he or she is filing for benefits, affirm the truthfulness of the information on his or her application, and agree to sign the electronic application for benefits by pressing a “sign now” button on the Internet screen. Under this planned procedure, SSA will deem that the individual's action in pressing the “sign now” button is an electronic signature for the Internet application.
As with all interactions with SSA, an individual must provide some knowledge-based information (also referred to as personal information) to establish his or her identity. To verify identity, the information that is provided must match the information already included on SSA records.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of approval of documents.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is issuing this notice to advise the public of the approval of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on an Environmental Assessment for proposed Federal actions at Aurora Municipal Airport, Aurora, Illinois. The FONSI specifies that the proposed Federal actions and local development projects are consistent with existing environmental policies and objectives as set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and will not significantly affect the quality of the environment.
A description of the proposed Federal actions is: (a) To issue an environmental finding to allow approval of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) for the development items listed below; (b) Approval of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) for the development items listed below; and (c) Establish eligibility of the City of Aurora to compete for Federal funding for the development projects contemplated on the Airport Layout Plan.
The specific items in the local airport development project include: Land acquisition of 96 acres in fee simple title, including relocation assistance for one (1) residence; assess for reimbursement approximately 83 acres of land previously acquired in fee simple title including relocation assistance for two (2) residences; acquire approximately 2.4 acres of aviation easement; construct, light and mark new Runway 9L-27R at 3,200′ x 75′; construct, light and mark parallel and connecting taxiways to new Runway 9L-27R; construct, light and mark a 75′ x 250′ extension to Runway 18 and a 75′ x 400′ extension to Runway 36, including grading and drainage; construct, light and mark parallel and connecting taxiways to Runway 18-36 extensions; rehabilitate and overlay existing Runway 18-36; construct northern partial parallel taxiway to existing Runway 9-27, including connectors; relocate a portion of Dugan Road; construct northeastern development area access roads; install CAT I ILS, including a MALSR, to create
Copies of the environmental decision and the Final EA are available for public information review during regular business hours at the following locations:
1. Aurora Municipal Airport, 43W636 U.S. 30, Sugar Grove, IL 60554-9619.
2. Division of Aeronautics—Illinois Department of Transportation, One Langhorne Bond Drive, Capital Airport, Springfield, IL 62707.
3. Chicago Airports District Office, Room 312, Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018.
E. Lindsay Butler, Airports Environmental Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Chicago Airports District Office, Room 312, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plains, Illinois 60018. Ms. Butler can be contacted at (847) 294-7723 (voice), (847) 294-7046 (facsimile) or by E-Mail at
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.
(1) Administer oral and practical tests to its students at times and places identified in its FAA-approved operations handbook,
(2) Allow students to apply for retesting within 30 days after failure without presenting a signed statement certifying additional instruction in the failed area,
(3) Administer the aviation mechanic general written test immediately after students successfully complete the general curriculum but before they meet the experience requirements of § 65.77, and
(4) Administer oral practical tests as an integral part of the aviation maintenance technician educational process rather than upon students' successful completion of the mechanic written tests.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petitions for exemption received and of dispositions of prior petitions.
Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption part 11 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR, dispositions of certain petitions previously received, and corrections. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition.
Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before May 24, 2004.
You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FAA-200X-XXXXX] 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
Tim Adams (202) 267-8033, 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 Intent to Rule on Application.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
Comments must be received on or before June 3, 2004.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate copies to the FAA at the following address: Mr. G. Thomas Wade, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Planning and Programming Branch, ASW-611, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0610.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Roy Williams, Director of Aviation, Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport at the following address: P.O. Box 20007, New Orleans, LA 70141.
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of the written comments previously provided to the Airport under Section 158.23 of part 158.
Mr. G. Thomas Wade, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Planning and Programming Branch, ASW-611, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0610, (817) 222-5613.
The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
On April 26, 2004, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by the Airport was substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than August 6, 2004.
The following is a brief overview of the application.
Brief description of proposed project(s):
1. Airport Interior Signage
2. Concourses A & B Terminal Reflooring
3. Concourse C Checkpoint Expansion
4. Construct Connector Taxiway U
5. Construct Holding Bay—Runway 19
6. Exterior Terminal Renovations—Lower Roadway
7. FIS Facility
8. Gate Utilization Study
9. Terminal HVAC Rehabilitation, Phase II
10. Terminal Pedestrian Access Enhancements
11. TSA-Related Terminal Modifications and Airline Relocations
12. Airport Master Plan
13. Noise Mitigation Flight Tracking System
14. Part 1542 Security System
15. Replace/Repair High Mast Lighting
16. Residential Sound Insulation Program/Land Acquisition
17. Terminal Apron Expansion
18. Terminal HVAC Rehabilitation—Phase III
19. Terminal Interior and Exterior Improvements
20. Transportation Center Expansion
Proposed class or classes of air carriers to be exempted from collecting PFC's: FAR Part 135 On-Demand Air Taxi/Commercial Operators (ATCO).
Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration.
Notice of availability and requests for public comment.
This notice announces the re-issuance of the proposed Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C166, Extended Squitter Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) and Traffic Information Service (TIS-B) Equipment Operating on the Radio Frequency of 1090 Megahertz (MHz). Comments received from the initial August 11, 2003, presentation resulted in significant changes to the TSO, including the addition of an Appendix A to address corrections to the proposed RTCA Inc., Document (RTCA/DO)-260A, Minimum Operational Performance Standards for 1090 MHz Extended Squitter Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) and Traffic Information Services-Broadcast (TIS-B), dated April 10, 2003. The resulting changes to this proposed TSO tells persons seeking a TSO authorization or letter of design approval what minimum performance standards (MPS) their Extended Squitter ADS-B and TIS-B equipment must meet to be identified with the applicable TSO marking.
Comments must be received on or before May 31, 2004.
Send all comments on the proposed technical standard order to: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Aircraft Certification Service, Aircraft Engineering Division, Avionic Systems Branch, AIR-130, 800 Independence Avenues, SW., Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Mr. Robert Duffer. Or deliver comments to: Federal Aviation Administration, Room 815, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
Mr. Robert Duffer, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification service, Aircraft Engineering Division, Avionic Systems Branch, AIR-30, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Telephone (202) 385-4557, FAX: (202) 385-4651.
Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed TSO listed in this notice by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they desire to the above specified address. Comments received on the proposed TSO may be examined, before and after the comment closing date, in Room 815, FAA Headquarters Buildings, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, weekdays except Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. All communications received on or before the closing date will be considered by the Director of the Aircraft Certification Service before issuing the final TSO.
This proposed TSO prescribes the MPS for airborne equipment to support Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) using Extended Squitter equipment operating on the frequency of 1090 MHz. ADS-B is a system by which aircraft and certain equipped surface vehicles can share position, velocity, and other information with one another, and with ground-based facilities such as air traffic services via radio broadcast techniques. Extended Squitter ADS-B will also support the reception of Traffic Information Service-Broadcast (TIS-B) messages. Two major classes of 1090 MHz Extended Squitter ADS-B equipment are supported by this proposed TSO; Class A( ) equipment which incorporates both a broadcast and receive subsystem, and Class B( ) equipment which supports broadcast only. It should be noted that upon final issuance of TSO-C166 the FAA will no longer accept applications for the incorporation of 1090 MHz Modes S Extended Squitter Broadcast under TSO-C112, unless the equipment also meets the minimum performance requirements of TSO-C166.
You may get a copy of the proposed TSO from the Internet at:
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Availability of TSO-C163.
This notice announces the availability of the Technical Standard Order (TSO) for VDL Mode 3 Communications Equipment Operating within the Frequency Range 117.975 to 137.000 MHz. The VDL Mode 3 TSO recognizes the RTCA document No. (RTCA/DO)-271B, Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for Aircraft VDL Mode 3 Transceiver Operating in the Frequency Range 117.975-137.000 MHz, as the minimum performance standards (MPS) for VDL Mode 3 equipment.
The effective date for TSO-C163 is April 29, 2004.
Mr. Gregory E. Frye, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Engineering Division, Aircraft Certification Service, AIR-130, 470 L'Enfant Plaza, Suite 4107, SW., Washington, DC 20024; Telephone: (202) 385-4649, FAX: (202) 385-4651; E-mail address:
You may get a copy of TSO-C163 from the Internet at
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Request for public comment on proposed collection of information.
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
This document describes one collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.
Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2004.
Comments must refer to the docket notice numbers cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted to Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Please identify the proposed collection of information for which a comment is provided, by referencing its OMB clearance Number. It is requested, but not required, that one original plus two copies of the comment be provided. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Complete copies of each request for collection of information may be obtained at no charge from Mary Versailles, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5320, NVS-131,Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Versailles' telephone number is (202) 366-2057. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the
(i) 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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(iv) 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 technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following proposed collection of information for which the agency is seeking extension of approval from OMB:
NHTSA anticipates that no more than 20 vehicle manufacturers will be affected by these reporting requirements. NHTSA does not believe that any of these 20 manufacturers are a small business (
NHTSA estimates that the vehicle manufacturers will incur a total annual reporting and cost burden of 6,066 hours and $4,700,000. The amount includes annual burden hours incurred by multi-stage manufacturers and motor vehicle equipment suppliers.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming 2001-2002 Mercedes Benz C-320 (203) passenger cars are eligible for importation.
This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic
The closing date for comments on the petition is June 3, 2004.
Comments should refer to the docket number and notice number, and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 am to 5 pm]. 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
Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-3151).
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the
Automobile Concepts of North Miami, Florida (Registered Importer 01-278) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether 2001-2002 Mercedes Benz C-320 (203) passenger cars are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles that Automobile Concepts believes are substantially similar are 2001-2002 Mercedes Benz C-320 (203) passenger cars that were manufactured for importation into, and sale in, the United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
The petitioner claims that it compared non-U.S. certified 2001-2002 Mercedes Benz C-320 (203) passenger cars to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
Automobile Concepts submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 2001-2002 Mercedes Benz C-320 (203) passenger cars as originally manufactured, conform to many Federal motor vehicle safety standards in the same manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards.
Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 2001-2002 Mercedes Benz C-320 (203) passenger cars are identical to their U.S. certified counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102
In addition, the petitioner claims that the vehicles comply with the Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR Part 581.
The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated:
Standard No. 101
Standard No. 108
Standard No. 110
Standard No. 111
Standard No. 114
Standard No. 118
Standard No. 208
Standard No. 209
Standard No. 210
Standard No. 301
Standard No. 401
Petitioner states that all vehicles must be inspected to ensure compliance with the Theft Prevention Standard at 49 CFR Part 541 and that U.S.-model anti-theft devices will be installed, as necessary, on vehicles that are not already so equipped. The petitioner expressed the belief that the vehicles do in fact comply with this standard.
The petitioner also states that a vehicle identification plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post to meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the petition described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 am to 5 pm]. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the
49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Office of Pipeline Safety, Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT.
Request for public comments and OMB approval.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) published a notice in the
Comments on this notice must be received no later than June 3, 2004, to be assured of consideration.
Comments should identify the docket number of this notice, RSPA-98-4957, and be mailed directly to Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), 726 Jackson Place, NW., Washington, DC 20593, ATTN: Desk Officer for the Department of Transportation.
Marvin Fell, Office of Pipeline Safety, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-6205, or by fax to (202) 366-4566, or via e-mail 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 respond, including the use of the appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice provides listings of changes made to National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) maps effective during the last 6 months of 2003.
The listings include changes to NFIP maps that became effective July 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003.
Doug Bellomo, P.E., Hazard Identification Section, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2903.
In accordance with Section 1360(i) of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994, this notice is provided to inform interested parties of changes made by FEMA to NFIP maps. The two listings provided show communities affected by map changes made by letter and communities affected by physical map changes. For each Letter of Map Change, the first listing provides the map panel(s) affected, effective (determination) date of the change, case number, and determination type. For each physical map change, the Map Revision listing provides the map panel(s) affected and the effective date of the change. The listing also identifies: (1) Those panels on which the Special Flood Hazard Areas have not been changed or have been changed only to incorporate the Letters of Map Change issued before the effective date; and (2) those panels for which a Flood Insurance Rate Map is produced for the first time, resulting only in changes to flood insurance and floodplain management requirements in the affected community. Future notices of changes to NFIP maps will be published approximately every 6 months.
Two listings are provided below. The first listing includes all Letters of Map Change issued by FEMA from July 1 through December 31, 2003. The following types of letters are included in the listing:
The second listing includes map panels that FEMA physically revised and republished from July 1 through December 31, 2003. For those map panels on which the Special Flood Hazard Areas have not been changed or have been changed only to incorporate Letters of Map Change issued before the effective date, two asterisks(**) are shown to the right of the map panel number. For those map panels for which a Flood Insurance Rate Map is produced for the first time, resulting only in changes to flood insurance and floodplain management requirements in the affected community, three asterisks(***) are shown to the right of the map panel number.
For both listings, a single asterisk is shown to the right of each county name that appears in the “Community” column. This asterisk indicates the area covered is the unincorporated areas of that county.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of review.
In this 2003 Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of plant and animal species native to the United States that we regard as candidates or have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Identification of candidate species can assist environmental planning efforts by providing advance notice of potential listings, allowing resource managers to alleviate threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list species as endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list a candidate species, the early notice provided here could result in more options for species management and recovery by prompting candidate conservation measures to alleviate threats to the species.
We request additional status information that may be available for the identified candidate species and information on additional species that we should include as candidates in future updates of this list. We will consider this information in preparing listing documents and future revisions to the notice of review. This information will help us in monitoring changes in the status of candidate species and also in conserving candidate species.
As part of the CNOR, we announce the availability of Candidate and Listing Priority Assignment Forms (candidate forms) for each candidate species. The CNOR and the candidate forms constitute our findings as to the status and threats that we evaluated in order to assign a listing priority number to each species. This includes our findings on resubmitted petitions and describes our progress in revising the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants during the period June 13, 2002 through April 19, 2004.
We will accept comments on the Candidate Notice of Review at any time.
Submit your comments regarding a particular species to the Regional Director of the Region identified in
Copies of the candidate forms that contain information and references regarding the range, status, and habitat needs of and listing priority assignment for a particular species are available for review at the appropriate Regional Office listed below in
The Endangered Species Coordinator(s) in the appropriate Regional Office(s) or Chris Nolin, Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification (703-358-2171).
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Table 1 of this CNOR includes 279 species that we regard as candidates for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists), as well as 24 species for which we have published proposed rules to list as threatened or endangered species. Most of the proposed species were previously identified in the 2002 CNOR (67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002). We encourage consideration of these species in conservation planning, as well as other environmental planning, such as in environmental impact analysis done under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (implemented at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and in local and statewide land use planning. Table 2 of this notice contains 19 species we identified as candidates or as proposed species in the June 13, 2002, CNOR that we now no longer consider candidates. This includes fourteen species we have listed as threatened or endangered since June 13, 2002, one species that we are removing from candidacy through this notice, and four species for which we withdrew the proposed listing rule. The Regions identified as having lead responsibility for the particular species will maintain updated records of information on candidate species.
Publication of this notice has been delayed due to efforts to resolve outstanding issues. As a result, many of the candidate forms reflect that our formal analysis was conducted in late winter/early spring of 2003, as shown by the approval date of the Regional Director on each form. However, we were able to update a small subset of the candidate forms recently to reflect additional information we have obtained on those species. We intend to publish an updated combined CNOR for animals and plants that will update all of the candidate forms, including our findings on resubmitted petitions and a description of our progress on listing actions, within the next few months in the
The Act directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to prepare a report on endangered and threatened
We published earlier comprehensive reviews for vertebrate animals in the
This revised notice supersedes all previous animal, plant, and combined notices of review.
Since publication of the 2002 CNOR, we reviewed the available information on candidate species to ensure that a proposed listing is justified for each species and to reevaluate the relative listing priority assignment of each species. We also evaluated whether we should emergency-list any of these species, particularly species with high priorities (
Below we present brief summaries of 24 new candidates. Complete information, including references, can be found in the candidate forms. You may obtain a copy of these forms from the Regional office that has the lead for the species, or from our Internet Web site (
Fisher, West Coast DPS (
Kittlitz's murrelet (
Xantus's murrelet (
Although the decline in Xantus's murrelet populations appears to have been substantial, the largest threats are being addressed, and, to some degree, ameliorated in the United States. Although predation is a large contributor to the current low population numbers of the Xantus's murrelet, it does not pose as imminent a threat as it once did. Cats and rats have been removed from many of the islands where they once occurred. Anacapa Island implemented a rat eradication program in 2001 that seems to have been successful in removing that non-native predator of the Xantus's murrelet. Rats were eradicated in 1994 from San Roque Island. The Service has been working with the State of California, National Park Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service to address the threats of light pollution and human disturbance. To address this threat, the California Department of Fish and Game implemented regulations to require shielding and limit wattage of lights used by boats conducting nighttime fishing activities. Although these regulations do not remove the negative effects of this activity, they likely have resulted in a reduction of the impacts. Oil pollution may pose a potential threat to the survival of the Xantus's murrelet population, but is not likely responsible for the species' current low numbers. Due to the nonimminent threats of high magnitude, we assign this species a listing priority number of 5.
Rayed bean (
Sheepnose mussel (
Spectaclecase (
Round ebonyshell (
Southern kidneyshell (
Narrow pigtoe (
Southern sandshell (
Fuzzy pigtoe (
Choctaw bean (
Tapered Pigtoe (
Coleman cave beetle (
Fowler's cave beetle (
Insular cave beetle (
Soothsayer cave beetle (
Noblett's cave beetle (
Nevares Spring naucorid bug (
Hala pepe (
Brand's phacelia (
Churchill Narrows buckwheat (
Orcutt's hazardia (
Everglades bully (
Southern Idaho ground squirrel (
Gunnison sage-grouse (
Numerous conservation actions have occurred and funding and plans for additional conservation actions are in place. However, threats to the sage-grouse currently have not been eliminated or reduced enough through conservation actions to remove the potential need for listing. With population numbers already low, the threat of drought-related declines, coupled with other threats, are of concern. Not only have sage-grouse numbers declined in 2003 and may decline in 2004 due to the 2002 drought, it is unknown how long drought conditions may last. Based on information available to date, including continued and significant population declines in 2003, threats to the sage-grouse have increased in the last year due to drought-related effects to the habitat and effects to chick survival and recruitment, and relaxation of restrictions on land use in Gunnison County, which harbors the only large population of the bird. Given these ongoing high magnitude threats, we are elevating the listing priority from a 5 to a 2. However, we do not believe that emergency listing is warranted at this time based on the size of the population remaining in the Gunnison Basin and continued pre-listing conservation actions.
Fluvial arctic grayling, upper Missouri River DPS (
Efforts to reestablish grayling populations within the historic range in the upper Missouri River basin began in 1997. At this time, there is no evidence that these efforts have been successful in reestablishing self-sustaining populations at any of four reintroduction sites. Drought conditions since 1999 have increased water temperatures, reduced flows, and exacerbated the effects of ongoing threats such as flow reductions from irrigation and stock water withdrawals, locally degraded habitat conditions, and potential competition or predation from non-native fish. Cooperative, community-based efforts have focused primarily on working with water users to leave water in the Big Hole River to increase flows and reduce water temperatures during periods of drought. The Big Hole Watershed Committee, the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department, and the Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife program are committed to ongoing, on-the-ground conservation efforts for grayling. Despite these efforts, there continue to be periods when flows are well below those considered “survival” flows for grayling and water temperatures exceed the thermal tolerance of grayling. Based on the 2002 grayling population surveys, we are elevating the listing priority number for this population from a 9 to 3 because the threats continue to be imminent and the magnitude is now high. However, these threats do not rise to the level that emergency listing is necessary, since, among other things, biologists found increased population numbers in the lower, cooler reaches of tributaries to the mainstem Big Hole River, in 2002 and 2003, hopefully mitigating for the low numbers of grayling found in the mainstem Big Hole River.
Page springsnail (
The Surprising Cave beetle (
San Fernando Valley spineflower (
Whorled sunflower (
Graham beardtongue (
Palapali (
Sheath-tailed bat (
Populations of
Tutuila is within the U.S. territory of American Samoa, thus this DPS is delimited by international government boundaries. The sheath-tailed bat resides in caves and is very susceptible to disturbance. Roost sites have been rendered unsuitable for bats by human intrusion into caves and the use of some caves as garbage dumps. Typhoons have also damaged some caves by blocking entrances or by flooding coastal caves. No single threat appears to be the cause of the reduced range of the sheath-tailed bat in the Marianas and in American Samoa. The loss of roosting caves, the loss of foraging habitat due to deforestation, disturbance by feral ungulates, introduced predators, and possibly pesticide use are appear to be the primary factors. In addition, small populations and limited numbers of populations place these two candidate sheath-tailed bats at great risk of extinction from inbreeding, random events, and storms. Based on immediate threats of a high magnitude, we retained the listing priority number of the sheath-tailed bat for the two candidate entities:
Hohiu kilau (
The Act provides two mechanisms for considering species for listing. First, the Act requires us to identify and propose for listing those species that require listing under the standards of section 4(a)(1). We implement this through the candidate program, discussed above. Second, the Act provides a mechanism for the public to petition us to add a species to the Lists. Under section 4(b)(3)(A), when we receive such a petition, we must determine within 90 days, to the maximum extent practicable, whether the petition presents substantial information that listing may be warranted (a “90-day finding”). If we make a positive 90-day finding, under section 4(b)(3)(B) we must make one of three possible findings within 12 months of the receipt of the petition (a “12-month finding”).
The first possible 12-month finding is that listing is not warranted, in which case we need take no further action on the petition. Second, we may find that listing is warranted, in which case we must promptly publish a proposed rule to list the species. Once we publish a proposed rule for a species, section 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) govern further procedures, regardless of whether or not we issued the proposal in response to a petition. Third, we may find that listing is warranted but precluded. Such a finding means that immediate publication of a proposed rule to list the species is precluded by higher priority listing proposals, and that we are making expeditious progress to add and remove species from the Lists, as appropriate.
On December 5, 1996, we made a final decision to redefine “candidate species” to mean those species for which the Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but for which issuance of the proposed rule is precluded (61 FR 64481, December 6, 1996). Therefore, the standard for making a species a candidate is identical to the standard for making a “warranted-but-precluded” 12-month petition finding on a petition to list, and we add all petitioned species subject to a “warranted-but-precluded” 12-month finding to the candidate list.
This publication also provides notice of both the positive 90-day finding and the warranted but precluded 12-month findings pursuant to section 4(b)(3) for candidate species listed on Table 1 that have been the subject of a petition to list. Even though all candidate species have warranted but precluded status (and thus the equivalent of positive 90-
In addition, pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act, once a petition is filed regarding a candidate species, the Service must make a 12-month petition finding in compliance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act at least once a year, until the Service proposes the species for listing or makes a final “not-warranted” finding. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act requires the Service to “implement a system to monitor effectively the status of all species” subject to a “warranted-but-precluded” 12-month finding, and to “make prompt use of the [emergency listing] authority [under section 4(b)(7)] to prevent a significant risk to the well being of any such species.” The CNOR plays a crucial role in the Service's monitoring of all candidate species by seeking information regarding the status of those species. The Service reviews all new information on candidate species as it becomes available, and identifies any species for which emergency listing may be appropriate. If the Service determines that emergency listing is appropriate for any candidate, the Service will make prompt use of its authority under section 4(b)(7). We have been reviewing and will continue to review at least annually the status of all candidates whether or not we receive a petition. Thus, the CNOR and accompanying candidate forms also constitute the Service's annual finding on the status of petitioned species pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i).
On June 20, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the 1999 CNOR (64 FR 57534, October 25, 1999) did not fulfill the second component of “warranted but precluded” 12-month petition findings for the Gila chub and Chiracahua leopard frog (
We have drafted subsequent CNORs (including this one) to address the Court's concerns. We have included below a description of why the listing of every petitioned candidate species is both warranted and precluded at this time. Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(ii) and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. section 206), any party with standing may challenge the merits of any “not warranted” or “warranted but precluded” petition findings incorporated in this CNOR. The analysis included herein, together with the administrative record for the decision at issue (particularly the supporting candidate form), will provide an adequate basis for a court to review the petition finding. Finally, nothing in this document or any of our policies should be construed as in any way modifying the Act's requirement that we make a new 12-month petition finding for each petitioned candidate within 1 year of the date of publication of this CNOR. If we fail to make any such finding on a timely basis, whether through publication of a new CNOR or some other form of notice, any party with standing may seek judicial review.
We reviewed the current status of and threats to the 42 candidates and 5 listed species for which we have received a petition and for which we have found listing or reclassification from threatened to endangered to be warranted but precluded. This includes 43 candidate or listed species for which we previously have published findings. For 42 of these 43 species, we have incorporated any new information we have gathered since the prior finding (for black-tailed prairie dog, see below) and, as a result of this review, we made continued “warranted-but-precluded” 12-month findings on the petitions for these species. There also are 3 new candidate species for which we have received petitions, and for which we are announcing initial “warranted-but-precluded” findings in this CNOR. Additionally, for one new candidate species for which we have received a petition, we recently published a separate initial “warranted-but-precluded” finding.
We have identified the 41 species that are candidates and for which we received petitions by the code “C*” in the category column on the left side of Table 1. As discussed above, this finding means that the immediate publication of proposed rules to list these species was precluded by our work on the higher priority listing actions, listed below, during the period from June 13, 2002 through April 19, 2004. We will continue to monitor the status of all candidate species, including petitioned species, as new information becomes available. This review will determine if a change in status is warranted, including the need to emergency-list a species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act.
In addition to identifying petitioned candidate species in Table 1, we also present brief summaries of why these particular candidates warrant listing. More complete information, including references, is found in the candidate forms. You may obtain a copy of these forms from the Regional office that has the lead for the species, or from the Fish and Wildlife Service's Internet Web site:
We find that the immediate issuance of a proposed rule and timely promulgation of a final rule for each of these actions has been, for the preceding months, and continues to be, precluded by higher priority listing actions. As described in section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act, in order for us to make a “warranted but precluded” finding on a petitioned action, we must be making expeditious progress to add qualified species to the Lists and to remove from the Lists species for which the protections of the Act are no longer necessary. This notice describes our progress in revising the lists since our June 13, 2002, publication of the last CNOR. We intend to publish these descriptions annually.
On February 20, 2003, the President signed into law the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill (Omnibus Bill), which appropriates funding to many Federal agencies and programs, including the Service's program for completing listing and critical habitat rules pursuant to Section 4 of the ESA (Listing Program), for the period from October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003. Through the Omnibus Bill, Congress specified that the Service could not spend more than $9,077,000 on Listing Program actions in FY 2003. Of that total, Congress also specified that the Service could not spend more than $6 million on designating critical habitat for already-listed species, leaving $3,077,000 for other listing activities. The Service has worked to ensure that Congress understands the level of funding necessary to comply with all of the Service's statutory requirements. In a January 7, 2003, Effects Statement to Conference Managers, the Department of the Interior informed Congress about these listing program requirements and requested an increase in the FY 2003 listing budget to $11.8 million.
For Fiscal Year (FY) 2004, the President requested an increase of $3,209,000 above the FY 2003 request to bring the Listing Program budget to $12,286,000. The request included $8,900,000 for designation of critical habitat for already-listed species, and $3,386,000 to conduct other Listing Program work. Subsequent to the President's FY 2004 budget request, a number of factors increased the amount of funding needed to complete judicially-mandated critical habitat work in FY 2004. Most significantly, the work that the Service was compelled to defer from FY 2003 had to be funded under the FY 2004 budget, at an estimated cost of $2,000,000. The Service also received several additional court orders requiring the Service to perform critical habitat work in FY 2004. In an October 2003 Effect Statement to the Conference managers, the Department of the Interior informed Congress that, because of these additional obligations, the Service needed an additional $2.5 million for the Listing Program in FY 2004.
Congress did not approve a Listing Program appropriation for FY 2004 until November 7, 2003, more than a month after the start of the fiscal year. On November 10, 2003, the President signed the 2004 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, which funded nearly fully the amount of the President's request (Pub. L. 108-108 (Nov. 10, 2003)). However, the bill did not address the Service's request for an additional $2.5 million to fully fund the Listing Program in FY 2004.
Thus, we anticipate that most or all of listing actions for the candidate species included in this CNOR will continue to be precluded by higher priority listing actions. The Service allocates the listing appropriation by task, rather than by region as we have done in the past. Thus, listing prioritization is accomplished at the national scale. However, the $3,386,000 is fully allocated to fund any emergency listings, and essential litigation-related, administrative, and program management functions and to comply with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements requiring petition findings or listing determinations. We are funding actions on the following species this fiscal year: California tiger salamander—central DPS, Boreal toad, Miami blue butterfly, Sacramento Mountians checkerspot butterfly, four subspecies of the skipper
Our progress in listing and delisting qualified species since June 13, 2002, is represented by the publication in the
Given the recent decision in
Work on proposed rules for candidates with lower priority (
Black-tailed prairie dog (
Fisher, west coast DPS (Martes pennanti)—See our initial “warranted-but-precluded” finding signed on April 2, 2004, and published in the
Southern Idaho ground squirrel (
Washington ground squirrel (
Given the lack of substantial dispersal movements, isolation and fragmentation of colonies and habitat can severely affect Washington ground squirrels by limiting genetic exchange and reproduction, exposing small colonies to destruction from unpredictable catastrophic events such as fire or drought, and limiting habitat available for escape if occupied habitat becomes unsuitable. Badgers (
The Service is working with the State of Oregon to pursue cooperative agreements primarily with the Navy to conserve the species on the Boardman Bombing Range. Three Mile Canyon Farms has recently purchased the Boeing tract from the State of Oregon and, in coordination with the Service, is in the process of developing a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for this property. Based on our current evaluation of threats, we assigned a listing priority number of 2 to this species.
Band-rumped storm-petrel, Hawaii DPS (
Gunnison sage-grouse (
Lesser prairie-chicken (
We have determined that the overall magnitude of threats to the lesser prairie-chicken throughout its range is moderate. The magnitude of threats to lesser prairie-chickens is primarily based on the quality and scale of existing habitat. The majority of threats to remaining lesser prairie-chicken populations are ongoing, and thus they are considered imminent. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the current conservation efforts to stabilize and increase existing populations throughout significant portions of the species range. Based on all currently available information, we assigned the lesser prairie-chicken a listing priority number of 8.
Yellow-billed cuckoo, western continental U.S. DPS (
Kittlitz's murrelet (
Greater sage-grouse, Columbia Basin DPS (
Military training constitutes the primary threat to the southern subpopulation, while habitat conversion is the primary threat impacting the northern subpopulation. However, we conclude that threats related to military training are not imminent, based on the implementation of the Army's conservation measures and considerably less-than-planned training activities occurring in Yakima and Kittitas Counties. Large areas of privately owned lands in Douglas County are currently withdrawn from crop production and planted to native and non-native cover under the Federal Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), established in 1985. Lands under the CRP are very important to the northern subpopulation of the Columbia Basin DPS. Much of the CRP acreage that could have expired was re-enrolled and total CRP acreage increased in 1998 in Douglas County. As such, we conclude that the high-magnitude, nonimminent threats to the Columbia Basin DPS of the greater sage grouse, leading to the assignment of a listing priority number of 6.
Xantus's murrelet (
Louisiana pine snake (
Cagle's map turtle (
Sand dune lizard (
Columbia spotted frog, Great Basin DPS (
Oregon spotted frog (
Boreal toad, Southern Rocky Mountains DPS (
Land use in boreal toad habitat includes recreation, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, and watershed alteration activities. Though declines in toad numbers have not been directly linked to habitat alteration, activities that destroy, modify, or curtail habitat likely contribute to the continued decline in toad numbers. The current and future use of water rights in the Southern Rocky Mountains may affect boreal toads. Increased demands on limited water resources can result in water level drops in reservoirs that toads are using. Transferring rights from one user group to another (
Yosemite toad (
Mountain yellow-legged frog, Sierra Nevada DPS (
Furthermore, the result of these extirpations is that the remaining populations are fragmented and isolated, making them vulnerable to further declines and local extirpations caused by other factors such as disease. For example, in reviewing documented mountain yellow-legged frog declines over the last 5 years in Sequoia and Kings National Parks, we found the frog suffered a 39-percent extinction rate of the frog where fish have not been stocked since the late 1970s. In comparison, over the last 7 years, in the Sierra National Forest's John Muir Wilderness Area there has been a 61-percent extinction rate where fish stocking has continued. The rate of extinction observed by Knapp over a 5- to 7-year time frame suggests the species' extinction within a few decades (assuming that the rate of extinction and recolonization observed over this time period accurately reflects the long-term rates). It is likely that disease, specifically chytrid fungus, has caused these recently observed declines. Although the life history and modes of transmission of chytrid fungus are not well understood, it appears that this pathogen is widespread throughout the range of the mountain yellow-legged frog within the Sierra Nevada, it is persistent in ecosystems, and it is resilient to environmental conditions such as drought and freezing. Therefore, we conclude that all remaining mountain yellow-legged frog populations within the Sierra Nevada are at risk to declines and extirpation as a result of infection by this pathogen. The overall magnitude and immediacy of threats to the Sierra Nevada distinct population segment of the mountain yellow-legged frog is high. Therefore, we assigned this species a listing priority of 3.
Relict leopard frog (
Fluvial arctic grayling, upper Missouri River DPS (
Chupadera springsnail (
Gila springsnail (
New Mexico springsnail (
Page springsnail (
Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle (
Wekiu bug (
The summit area where wekiu bug habitat occurs lies within a State conservation district and any construction in the area requires a permit from the State Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). Prior to development of the Mauna Kea Science Reserve, a development plan for the summit area was written that addressed the sensitivity of the wekiu bug and its habitat. Despite the fact that important wekiu bug habitat was identified as sensitive in the 1983 plan and was to be avoided in the development of the facilities, a lack of communication and insufficient monitoring of construction activities at the summit during construction of the Subaru telescope facility resulted in the loss of most wekiu bug habitat in Puu Hau Oki. Currently, the Institute for Astronomy is developing a new Mauna Kea Science Reserve master plan and is funding a series of surveys to determine how the impact of future development might impact the flora and fauna (particularly the wekiu bug) of the summit area. Under the current management plan, the number of telescopes is limited to 13. However, old facilities could be torn down and replaced with submillimeter arrays which can have up to 20 times the surface impact of construction of a standard telescope and still count as one telescope. Furthermore, development of interferometers on Mauna Kea may continue under the current management plan since they do not count as “telescopes.” Interferometers are specialized antennae for observing astronomical occurrences, and the resulting structure impacts at least as much surface area as a large telescope. Based on imminent threats of a high magnitude, we assigned this species a listing priority number of 2.
Whulge checkerspot butterfly (
Dakota skipper (
Mardon skipper (
Christ's paintbrush (
San Fernando Valley spineflower (
Graham beardtongue (
White River beardtongue (
Lemmon fleabane (
Guadalupe fescue (
Parish's checkerbloom (
Acuna cactus (
Orcutt's hazardia (
Tahoe yellow cress (
Most of the remaining sites are intensively used for commercial and public purposes and are subject to various activities such as erosion control, marina developments, pier construction, and recreation. Both the U.S. Forest Service and California Department of Parks and Recreation have management programs for Tahoe yellow cress that include monitoring, fenced exclosures, and transplanting efforts when funds and staff are available. Public agencies (including the Service), private landowners, and environmental groups collaborated to develop a conservation strategy coupled with a Memorandum of Understanding/Conservation Agreement. The completed conservation strategy contains goals and objectives for the strategy, a research and monitoring agenda, and will serve as the foundation for an adaptive management program. Efforts to minimize or eliminate impacts to this species and its habitat are ongoing; however, at this time, there is no evidence to suggest that the threats to the species have been adequately addressed. Despite the relatively high number of populations observed during the 2001 and 2002 surveys, the increasing and intense recreational use and further development of the shore zone at Lake Tahoe are current, high-magnitude threats; therefore, the Service is maintaining the current LPN of 2 for the Tahoe yellow cress.
Siskiyou mariposa lily (
Unpublished data show that there has been no successful reproduction of Siskiyou mariposa lily in the last 5 years. The combination of restricted range, apparent loss of one of two disjunct populations, poor competitive ability, short seed dispersal distance, slow growth rates, extremely low or absent seed production, and competition from exotic plants threaten the continued existence of this species. Due to imminent threats of a high magnitude, we assigned a listing priority number of 2 to this species.
Slender moonwort (
The slender moonwort is considered a sensitive species in Regions 2, 5, and 6 of the U. S. Forest Service, which include extant and historical slender moonwort sites found in Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and California. Regional sensitive species lists fall under Forest Service regulations that address protection of sensitive species. Forest Service Regions 1 and 4, which include extant and historical sites found in Montana and Idaho, do not have slender moonwort on their regional sensitive species lists and it is, therefore, not given any special consideration. Although the slender moonwort is considered to be rare and imperiled by the State Natural Heritage Programs in Colorado, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, the State Natural Heritage Program rankings are not legal designations and do not confer State regulatory protection to this species. Because we concluded that the overall magnitude of threats to the slender moonwort throughout its range is moderate and the overall immediacy of these threats is non-imminent, we assigned this species a listing priority number of 11.
We have also previously made “warranted but precluded” findings on five petitions that sought to reclassify threatened species to endangered status. Because these species are already listed, they are not technically candidates for listing and are not included in Table 1. However, this notice and associated assessment forms also constitutes the resubmitted petition findings for these species. We find that reclassification to endangered status for the species listed below is currently warranted but precluded by work identified above (see “Petition for a Candidate Species” above). In addition, these species are currently listed as threatened under the Act and therefore receive protection under the Act. The Service promulgated regulations extending take prohibitions for endangered species under section 9 to threatened species (50 CFR 17.31). Prohibited actions under section 9 include, but are not limited to, take (
(1) North Cascades ecosystem DPS of the grizzly bear (
(2) Cabinet-Yaak DPS of the grizzly bear (Region 6) (see 64 FR 26725, May 17, 1999, and the candidate form (
(3) Selkirk grizzly DPS of the grizzly bear (Region 6) (see 64 FR 26725, May 17, 1999, and the candidate form (
(4) Spikedace (
(5) Loach minnow (
We gather data on plants and animals native to the United States that appear to merit consideration for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. This notice identifies those species that we currently regard as candidates for addition to the Lists. These species include species and subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plants and distinct population segments (DPSs) of vertebrate animals. In issuing this compilation, we rely on information from status surveys conducted for candidate assessment and on information from State Natural Heritage Programs, other State and Federal agencies, knowledgeable scientists, public and private natural resource interests, and comments received in response to previous notices of review.
Tables 1 and 2 are arranged list animals alphabetically by common names under the major group headings, then plants alphabetically by names of genera, species, and relevant subspecies and varieties. Animals are grouped by class or order. Plants are subdivided into two groups: flowering plants and ferns and their allies. Useful synonyms and subgeneric scientific names appear in parentheses with the synonyms preceded by an “equals” sign. Several species that have not yet been formally described in the scientific literature are included; such species are identified by a generic or specific name (in italics) followed by “sp.” or “ssp.” We incorporate standardized common names in these notices as they become available. We sorted plants by scientific name due to the inconsistencies in common names, the inclusion of vernacular and composite subspecific names, and the fact that many plants still lack a standardized common name.
Table 1 lists all species that we regard as candidates for listing and all species proposed for listing under the Act. We emphasize that we are not proposing these candidate species for listing by this notice, but we anticipate developing and publishing proposed listing rules for these species in the future. We encourage State agencies, other Federal agencies, and other parties to give consideration to these species in environmental planning.
Species in Table 1 of this notice are assigned to several status categories, noted in the “category” column at the left side of the table. We explain the codes for the Table 1 category status column of species below:
PE—Species proposed for listing as endangered. Proposed species are those species for which we have published a proposed rule to list as endangered or threatened in the
PT—Species proposed for listing as threatened.
PSAT—Species proposed for listing as threatened due to similarity of appearance.
C—Candidates: Species for which we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened. Issuance of proposed rules for these species is precluded at present by other higher-priority listing actions. This category includes species for which we made a 12-month “warranted-but-precluded” finding on a petition to list. We made new findings on all petitions for which we previously made “warranted-but-
The column labeled “Priority” indicates the listing priority number (LPN) for each candidate species. We use LPNs to determine the most appropriate use of our available resources, with the lowest numbers having the highest priority. We assign LPNs based on the immediacy and magnitude of threats as well as on taxonomic status. We published a complete description of our listing priority system in the
The third column, “Lead Region,” identifies the Regional Office to which you should direct comments or questions (
Following the scientific name (fourth column) and the family designation (fifth column) is the common name (sixth column). The seventh column provides the known historical range for the species or vertebrate population (for vertebrate populations, this is the historical range for the entire species or subspecies and not just the historical range for the distinct population segment), indicated by postal code abbreviations for States and U.S. territories. Many species no longer occur in all of the areas listed.
Species in Table 2 of this notice are species we included either as proposed species or as candidates in the 2002 CNOR. Since the 2002 CNOR, we added 14 of these species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, we removed the 1 species from candidate status, and we withdrew 4 proposed rules to list for the reasons as indicated by the codes. The first column indicates the present status of the species, using the following codes (not all of these codes may have been used in this CNOR):
E—Species we listed as endangered.
T—Species we listed as threatened.
Rc—Species we removed from the candidate list because currently available information does not support a proposed listing.
Rp—Species we removed from the candidate list because we have withdrawn the proposed listing.
The second column indicates why we no longer regard the species as a candidate or proposed species using the following codes (not all of these codes may have been used in this CNOR):
A—Species that are more abundant or widespread than previously believed and species that are not subject to the degree of threats sufficient to warrant continuing candidate status, or issuing a proposed or final listing. The reduction in threats could be due, in part or entirely, to actions taken under a conservation agreement.
F—Species whose range no longer includes a U.S. territory.
I—Species for which we have insufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support issuance of a proposed rule to list.
L—Species we added to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
M—Species we mistakenly included as candidates or proposed species in the last notice of review.
N—Species that are not listable entities based on the Act's definition of “species” and current taxonomic understanding.
X—Species we believe to be extinct.
The columns describing lead region, scientific name, family, common name, and historical range include information as previously described for Table 1.
We request you submit any further information on the species named in this notice as soon as possible or whenever it becomes available. We are particularly interested in any information:
(1) Indicating that we should add a species to the list of candidate species;
(2) Indicating that we should remove a species from candidate status;
(3) Recommending areas that we should designate as critical habitat for a species, or indicating that designation of critical habitat would not be prudent for a species;
(4) Documenting threats to any of the included species;
(5) Describing the immediacy or magnitude of threats facing candidate species;
(6) Pointing out taxonomic or nomenclature changes for any of the species;
(7) Suggesting appropriate common names;
(8) Noting any mistakes, such as errors in the indicated historical ranges.
Submit your comments regarding a particular species to the Regional Director of the Region identified as having the lead responsibility for that species. The regional addresses follow:
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public inspection. Individual respondents may
This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531