Farm Service Agency
Forest Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Rural Housing Service
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Technology Administration
Air Force Department
Western Area Power Administration
Presidential Documents
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Coast Guard
Customs and Border Protection Bureau
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Federal Aviation Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 50 series airplanes, that requires a one-time inspection for improper installation of the electrical wiring for the optional lighting in the cabin, and corrective actions if necessary. This action is necessary to find and fix improper installation of the electrical wiring of the basic/optional cabin lighting, which could result in overheating of the wiring and possible smoke/fire in the cabin during an emergency situation. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective June 16, 2004.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 16, 2004.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey 07606. This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1137; fax (425) 227-1149.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 50 series airplanes was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.
One commenter states that there is an error in the section of the proposed AD titled “Explanation of Relevant Service Information,” which references Dassault Service Bulletin F50-318, Revision 1, dated June 12, 2002. The commenter states that the correct reference should be Dassault Service Bulletin F50-318, Revision 2, dated January 15, 2003. The commenter also asks that Revision 2 be added to paragraph (a) of the proposed AD.
The FAA acknowledges the commenter's remarks. Since Revision 2 of the service bulletin was not issued until after the proposed AD was published, we referenced Revision 1 in the proposed AD. Revision 2 is essentially the same as Revision 1 of the referenced service bulletin. We have added references to Revision 2 to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this final rule as another source of service information for accomplishment of the specified actions.
The same commenter states that, as written, the unsafe condition specified in the proposed AD is misleading. The unsafe condition states, “This action is necessary to prevent overheating of optional lighting wiring that was improperly installed in the cabin, and consequent smoke/fire in the cabin.” The commenter suggests that this wording be changed to read, “This action is necessary to ensure the basic/optional cabin lighting routing and power supply conform to the certification rules.” The commenter notes that this language is contained in the referenced service bulletin, and accomplishment of the service bulletin is intended to correct wiring that is installed directly to the batteries, instead of through a dedicated circuit breaker.
We acknowledge the commenter's concern regarding the description of the unsafe condition specified in the proposed AD. The description of the unsafe condition is based on the airworthiness directive issued by the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile, which is the airworthiness authority for France. The Discussion section of the proposed AD reads, “The DGAC advises that due to incorrect routing, wiring for the optional lighting in the cabin may be directly connected to the direct power supply line of the battery bus instead of through a dedicated circuit breaker. In this configuration, an electrical current is generated even after the starter generators and batteries are switched off.” Although the commenter found the description of the unsafe condition to be misleading, we do not find the commenter's suggested wording to be an adequate description of the effect on the airplane of incorrect routing of the subject wiring. However, we have provided further clarification of the unsafe condition in this final rule. We have changed the statement of the unsafe condition to read, “This action is necessary to find and fix improper installation of the electrical wiring of the basic/optional cabin lighting, which could result in overheating of the wiring and possible smoke/fire in the cabin during an emergency situation.”
One commenter, Dassault Falcon Jet, states that the work hours listed in the proposed AD may be significantly increased if additional wiring alterations are done to the electrical circuit after airplane delivery. The commenter adds that the kits (parts) provided by the manufacturer at no charge were available only through March 2003.
We acknowledge the commenter's concerns; however, additional wiring alterations done to the electrical circuit after airplane delivery are outside the requirements of this AD, thus would not be included in the estimated work hours. In addition, we have been informed by the manufacturer (Dassault Aviation, France) that the kits provided at no charge are available for one year after the effective date of this AD.
After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes described previously. These changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
We estimate that 175 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.
It will take about 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspection at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the required inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $22,750, or $130 per airplane.
Should an operator have to modify the optional lighting wiring, it takes about 60 work hours at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts would be provided by the manufacturer at no charge. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the modification is estimated to be $3,900 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
To find and fix improper installation of the electrical wiring of the basic/optional cabin lighting, which could result in overheating of the wiring and possible smoke/fire in the cabin during an emergency situation, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 13 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a detailed inspection (including measurement of electrical current) of the electrical wiring installation for optional lighting in the cabin to determine if any wiring is directly connected to the battery bus. Do all of the applicable actions per the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F50-318, Revision 1, dated June 12, 2002; or Revision 2, dated January 15, 2003.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.”
(b) If any electrical wiring is found to be directly connected to the battery bus during the inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD, before further flight, do all the applicable corrective actions (
(c) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
(d) The actions shall be done in accordance with Dassault Service Bulletin F50-318, Revision 1, dated June 12, 2002; or Dassault Service Bulletin F50-318, Revision 2, dated January 15, 2003. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey 07606. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
The subject of this AD is addressed in French airworthiness directive 2002-086-036(B) R1, dated March 20, 2002.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on June 16, 2004.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a final rule amending the final monograph (FM) for over-the-counter (OTC) antidiarrheal drug products to include relief of travelers' diarrhea as an indication for products containing bismuth subsalicylate. Travelers' diarrhea occurs in travelers and is most commonly caused by an infectious agent. This final rule is part of FDA's ongoing review of OTC drug products.
This rule is effective June 11, 2004.
Mary S. Robinson, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-560), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-2222.
In the
FDA discussed a travelers' diarrhea claim for bismuth subsalicylate in the final rule for OTC antidiarrheal drug products (68 FR 18869, April 17, 2003). Travelers' diarrhea is an acute diarrheal illness occurring among travelers, particularly those visiting developing countries where sanitation is suboptimal. Most cases of travelers' diarrhea are caused by infectious agents, acquired through the ingestion of fecally contaminated food and/or water. Bacterial pathogens account for the great majority of episodes. Overall, one of the most common etiologic agents in travelers' diarrhea are enterotoxigenic
FDA discussed the clinical data for this claim in section II, comment 3 of the final rule for OTC antidiarrheal drug products (68 FR 18869 at 18871). FDA has determined that the data support the use of bismuth subsalicylate in treating the symptoms of travelers' diarrhea. Accordingly, FDA is amending the FM to include an indication [“controls” or “relieves” “travelers' diarrhea”] for OTC antidiarrheal drug products containing bismuth subsalicylate identified in 21 CFR 335.10(a).
In response to the proposal, FDA received one comment, which is on public display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. The comment agreed completely with the proposal to amend the FM for OTC antidiarrheal drug products to include the additional indication for travelers' diarrhea for products containing bismuth subsalicylate. The comment encouraged FDA to expeditiously amend the FM so this indication can be used on appropriate OTC drug products.
FDA agrees with the comment and is providing that this final rule be effective 30 days after its date of publication.
FDA is amending the FM for OTC antidiarrheal drug products to make the following additions:
• Definitions in 21 CFR 335.3(c): “Travelers' diarrhea. A subset of diarrhea occurring in travelers that is most commonly caused by an infectious agent.”
• Indications in 21 CFR 335.50(b)(1) for products containing bismuth subsalicylate: [select one of the following: “controls” or “relieves”] *** “travelers' diarrhea”]. If both “diarrhea” and “travelers' diarrhea” are selected, each shall be preceded by a bullet in accordance with 21 CFR 201.66(b)(4) and (d)(4) of this chapter and the heading “Uses” shall be used.
FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501
FDA concludes that this final rule is consistent with the principles set out in Executive Order 12866 and in these two statutes. The final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive order and so is not subject to review under the Executive order. As discussed in this section of the document, FDA has determined that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not require FDA to prepare a statement of costs and benefits for this final rule, because the final rule is not expected to result in any 1-year expenditure that would exceed $100 million adjusted for inflation. The current inflation adjusted statutory threshold is about $110 million.
The purpose of this final rule is to provide an additional (optional) claim for OTC antidiarrheal drug products containing bismuth subsalicylate. Manufacturers can add this claim to
FDA concludes that the labeling requirements in this document are not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget because they do not constitute a “collection of information” under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.31(a) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
FDA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the agency concludes that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
Labeling, Over-the-counter drugs.
21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 353, 355, 360, 371.
(c)
(b) * * *
(1)
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reclassifying root-form endosseous dental implants and endosseous dental implant abutments from class III to class II (special controls). Root-form endosseous dental implants are intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore the patient's chewing function. Endosseous dental implant abutments are separate components that are attached to the dental implant and intended to aid in prosthetic rehabilitation. FDA is reclassifying these devices on its own initiative on the basis of new information. Elsewhere in this issue of the
This rule is effective June 11, 2004.
Angela E. Blackwell, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-480), Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850, 301-827-5283.
The act (21 U.S.C. 301
Under section 513 of the act, FDA refers to devices that were in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the 1976 amendments), as “preamendments devices.” FDA classifies these devices after the agency initiates the following procedures: (1) Receives a recommendation from a device classification panel (an FDA advisory committee); (2) publishes the panel's recommendation for comment, along with a proposed regulation classifying the device; and (3) publishes a final regulation classifying the device. FDA has classified most preamendments devices under these procedures.
FDA refers to devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, as “postamendments devices.”
Section 513(e) of the act governs the reclassification of classified preamendments devices. This section provides that FDA may, by rulemaking, reclassify a device based on “new information.” Under section 513(e) of the act, FDA can initiate reclassification or an interested person can petition FDA to reclassify a preamendments device. The term “new information,” as used in section 513(e) of the act, includes information developed after the date of the device's original classification. This information could include a reevalution of the original data or information from the time of the device's original classification that was not presented, available, or developed at that time. (See, e.g.,
Reevaluation of the data previously used by FDA is an appropriate basis for subsequent regulatory action where the reevaluation is made in light of newly available regulatory authority (see
FDA relies upon “valid scientific evidence” in the classification process to determine the level of regulation for devices. When reclassifying a device, FDA can only consider valid scientific evidence that is publicly available. Publicly available information excludes trade secret and confidential commercial information, e.g., the contents of a pending PMA. (See section 520(c) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360j(c).)
In the
Also in the
In accordance with § 860.84(g)(2) of the regulations, FDA is reclassifying root-form endosseous dental implants and endosseous dental implant abutments into class II. FDA is revising the classification of endosseous implants to distinguish between root-form endosseous dental implants and blade-form endosseous dental implants. Root-form endosseous dental implants are characterized by four geometrically distinct types: Basket, screw, solid cylinder, and hollow cylinder. Blade-form endosseous dental implants are flat and have different surgical requirements. To ensure clarity, FDA is establishing a separate classification regulation for endosseous dental implant abutments (§ 872.3630 (21 CFR 872.3630)), because abutments are not implants. The guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Root-Form Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Implant Abutments” will serve as the special control for both devices. Elsewhere in this issue of the
FDA believes that review of performance characteristics and labeling can ensure that acceptable levels of performance for both safety and effectiveness are addressed before marketing clearance. Persons who intend to market these devices must submit to FDA a premarket notification submission before marketing the devices.
FDA received a total of five comments on the proposed rule and the special controls guidance document. Four comments addressed reclassification. Three comments agreed with the reclassification of root-form endosseous dental implants from class III to class II. One comment stated that root-form endosseous dental implants should remain in class III because of the potential for initial contamination of an implant at placement. The comment believes that initial contamination of the implant may be a cause of oral infection resulting in the future loss of the implant. FDA believes that the quality system regulation requirements, a general control, along with the recommended mitigation measures for health risks specified in the special controls guidance document, address sterility issues adequately and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Therefore, FDA is codifying the reclassification of root-form endosseous dental implants by revising § 872.3640.
Three comments supported the reclassification of endosseous dental
FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this reclassification action does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. If regulation is necessary, a regulatory agency must plot a course that maximizes net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). FDA believes the final rule is consistent with the regulatory philosophy and principles identified in the Executive order. Additionally, as defined by the Executive order, the final rule does not constitute a significant regulatory action. As a result, the final rule is not subject to review under the Executive order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Reclassification of these devices from class III to class II will relieve all manufacturers of the devices of the cost of eventually complying with the premarket approval requirements in section 515 of the act. FDA expects that manufacturers of cleared root-form endosseous dental implants and endosseous dental implant abutments will not have to take any additional action in response to this rule. Currently, manufacturers of endosseous dental implants and endosseous dental implant abutments must submit premarket notifications to FDA before marketing their devices. The guidance document reflects existing FDA practice in the review of these premarket notifications and will help expedite the review process for new manufacturers of these devices. Because reclassification will reduce the regulatory costs associated with these devices, it will impose no new burdens on manufacturers of these devices. In fact, it may permit small potential competitors to enter the marketplace by lowering their costs. The agency therefore certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In addition, this rule will not impose costs of $100 million or more on either the private sector or State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate. As a result, a summary statement of analysis under section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is not required.
FDA has analyzed the final rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule does not contain policies conferring substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, FDA has concluded that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order. As a result, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
FDA concludes that the final rule contains no collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget, according to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) is not required.
Medical devices.
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(2) Class III (premarket approval). The device is classified as class III if it is a blade-form endosseous dental implant.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correction to final regulations.
This document contain a correction to final regulations that were published in the
This correction is effective May 3, 2004.
Tara P. Volungis or Christopher L. Trump, (202) 622-3070 (not a toll-free number).
The final regulations that is the subject of this correction is under section 465 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the final regulation contains an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.
Postal Service.
Withdrawal of final rule.
We are withdrawing the amendment to the Domestic Mail Manual in the final rule published in the
May 12, 2004.
Obataiye B. Akinwole at (703) 292-3643.
The Postal Service will issue a further document regarding these mailing standards.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for combined residues of pyraflufen-ethyl, (ethyl 2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-4-fluorophenoxyacetate) and its acid metabolite, E-1 (2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-4- fluorophenoxyacetic acid), in or on wheat, forage; wheat, grain; wheat, hay; and wheat, straw. Nichino America Incorporated requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).
This regulation is effective May 12, 2004. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before July 12, 2004.
To submit a written objection or hearing request follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit VI. of the
Joanne I. Miller, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-6224; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
• Animal production (NAICS 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers; dairy cattle farmers; livestock farmers.
• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators.
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users.
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
In addition to using EDOCKET
In the
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.585 be amended by establishing tolerances for combined residues of the herbicide pyraflufen-ethyl, (ethyl 2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy-1-methylpyrazol-3-yl)-4-fluorophenoxyacetate) and its acid metabolite, E-1, (2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy-1-methypyrazol-3-yl)-4-fluorophenoxyacetic acid), expressed as the ester equivalent, in or on wheat forage, wheat grain, wheat hay, and wheat straw at 0.01 parts per million (ppm).
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....”
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 of FFDCA and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-5754-7).
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(b)(2) of FFDCA, for tolerances for combined residues of pyraflufen-ethyl on wheat, forage and wheat, hay at 0.1 ppm; and wheat, grain and wheat, straw at 0.01 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by pyraflufen-ethyl as well as the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies reviewed are discussed in the
The dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of concern (LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty factor (UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. An UF of 100 is routinely used, 10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences.
Three other types of safety or uncertainty factors may be used: “Traditional uncertainty factors;” the “special FQPA safety factor;” and the “default FQPA safety factor.” By the term “traditional uncertainty factor,” EPA is referring to those additional uncertainty factors used prior to FQPA passage to account for database deficiencies. These traditional uncertainty factors have been incorporated by the FQPA into the additional safety factor for the protection of infants and children. The term “special FQPA safety factor” refers to those safety factors that are deemed necessary for the protection of infants and children primarily as a result of the FQPA. The “default FQPA safety factor” is the additional 10X safety factor that is mandated by the statute unless it is decided that there are reliable data to choose a different additional factor (potentially a traditional uncertainty factor or a special FQPA safety factor).
For dietary risk assessment (other than cancer) the Agency uses the UF to calculate an acute or chronic reference dose (acute RfD or chronic RfD) where the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided by an UF of 100 to account for interspecies and intraspecies differences and any traditional uncertainty factors deemed appropriate (RfD = NOAEL/UF). Where a special FQPA safety factor or the default FQPA safety factor is used, this additional factor is applied to the RfD by dividing the RfD by such additional factor. The acute or chronic Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD or cPAD) is a modification of the RfD to accommodate this type of safety factor.
For non-dietary risk assessments (other than cancer) the UF is used to determine the LOC. For example, when 100 is the appropriate UF (10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences) the LOC is 100. To estimate risk, a ratio of the NOAEL to exposures (margin of exposure (MOE) = NOAEL/exposure) is calculated and compared to the LOC.
The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method currently used by the Agency to quantify carcinogenic risk. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of cancer risk. A Q* is calculated and used to estimate risk which represents a probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases (e.g., risk). An example of how such a probability risk is expressed would be to describe the risk as one in one hundred thousand (1 × 10
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for pyraflufen-ethyl used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
The Agency uses the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) or the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS), to produce estimates of pesticide concentrations in an index reservoir. The SCI-GROW model is used to predict pesticide concentrations in shallow ground water. For a screening-level assessment for surface water EPA will use FIRST (a tier 1 model) before using PRZM/EXAMS (a tier 2 model). The FIRST model is a subset of the PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a specific high-end runoff scenario for pesticides. Both FIRST and PRZM/EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir environment, and both models include a percent crop area factor as an adjustment to account for the maximum percent crop coverage within a watershed or drainage basin.
None of these models include consideration of the impact processing (mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this stage is to provide a screen for sorting out pesticides for which it is unlikely that drinking water concentrations would exceed human health levels of concern.
Since the models used are considered to be screening tools in the risk assessment process, the Agency does not use estimated environmental concentrations (EECs), which are the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water. EECs derived from these models are used to quantify drinking water exposure and risk as a %RfD or %PAD. Instead drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) are calculated and used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food, and from residential uses. Since DWLOCs address total aggregate exposure to pyraflufen-ethyl they are further discussed in the aggregate risk sections in unit III.E.
Based on the FIRST and SCI-GROW models, the EECs of pyraflufen-ethyl for acute exposures are estimated to be 1.25 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.002 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.28 ppb for surface water and 0.002 ppb for ground water.
3.
Pyraflufen-ethyl is currently registered for use on the following residential non-dietary sites: Airports, nurseries, ornamental turf, golf courses, roadsides, railroads, noncrop land, and uncultivated agricultural areas. The risk assessment was conducted using the following residential exposure assumptions: Adults and children may be exposed to residues of pyraflufen-ethyl through postapplication contact with treated areas which may include residential/recreational areas.
4.
EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether pyraflufen-ethyl has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to pyraflufen-ethyl and any other substances and pyraflufen-ethyl does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that pyraflufen-ethyl has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements
1.
2.
3.
To estimate total aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food, drinking water, and residential uses, the Agency calculates DWLOCs which are used as a point of comparison against EECs. DWLOC values are not regulatory standards for drinking water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food and residential uses. In calculating a DWLOC, the Agency determines how much of the acceptable exposure (i.e., the PAD) is available for exposure through drinking water (e.g., allowable chronic water exposure (mg/kg/day) = cPAD - (average food + residential exposure)). This allowable exposure through drinking water is used to calculate a DWLOC.
A DWLOC will vary depending on the toxic endpoint, drinking water consumption, and body weights. Default body weights and consumption values as used by the EPA's Office of Water are used to calculate DWLOCs: 2 liter (L)/70 kg (adult male), 2L/60 kg (adult female), and 1L/10 kg (child). Default body weights and drinking water consumption values vary on an individual basis. This variation will be taken into account in more refined screening-level and quantitative drinking water exposure assessments. Different populations will have different DWLOCs. Generally, a DWLOC is calculated for each type of risk assessment used: Acute, short-term, intermediate-term, chronic, and cancer.
When EECs for surface water and ground water are less than the calculated DWLOCs, OPP concludes with reasonable certainty that exposures to the pesticide in drinking water (when considered along with other sources of exposure for which OPP has reliable data) would not result in unacceptable levels of aggregate human health risk at this time. Because OPP considers the aggregate risk resulting from multiple exposure pathways associated with a pesticide's uses, levels of comparison in drinking water may vary as those uses change. If new uses are added in the future, OPP will reassess the potential impacts of residues of the pesticide in drinking water as a part of the aggregate risk assessment process.
1.
2.
3.
A short-term risk aggregate assessment was not performed for adults because no handler exposure is expected and postapplication inhalation exposure is expected to be negligible. A short-term aggregate risk assessment is required for infants and children because there is a potential for oral post-application exposure resulting from contact with treated areas which may include residential/recreational areas.
Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
Pyraflufen-ethyl is currently registered for use that could result in short-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic food and water and short-term exposures for pyraflufen-ethyl.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded that food and residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of 120,500 for children (3-5 years old). These aggregate MOEs do not exceed the Agency's level of concern for aggregate exposure to food and residential uses. In addition, short-term DWLOCs were calculated and compared to the EECs for chronic exposure of pyraflufen-ethyl in ground and surface water. After calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to- the EECs for surface and ground water, EPA does not expect short-term aggregate exposure to exceed the Agency's level of concern, as shown in Table 2 of this unit:
4.
An intermediate-term risk aggregate assessment is not required for adults because no handler exposure is expected and postapplication inhalation exposure is expected to be negligible. Also, an intermediate-term aggregate risk assessment is not required for infants and children because postapplication exposure over the intermediate-term duration is not likely based on the use pattern. Therefore, an intermediate-term aggregate risk assessment was not performed.
5.
6.
Nichino America Incorporated has submitted a petition method validation (PMV) and an independent laboratory validation for a Gas Chromatography and Mass Selective (GC/MS) method proposed for the enforcement of tolerances for residues of pyraflufen-ethyl and its acid metabolite, E-1, on wheat.
There is neither a Codex proposal, nor Canadian or Mexican limits, for residues of pyraflufen-ethyl in/on wheat. Harmonization is not an issue for this petition.
The following data are being required by the Agency to complete the database requirements prior to approval of an unconditional registration of pyraflufen-ethyl:
• Submit a separate copy of a detailed description of the methodology used to quantify residues of pyraflufen-ethyl and E-1 (measured as E-15, the methyl ester of E-1) for this tolerance request without confidentiality claims. The results for E-15 should be calculated in terms of parent compound. Once the separate detailed description of the methodology is received and accepted, it will be sent to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for inclusion in the Pesticide Analytical Manual Volume II (PAM II) as a lettered method.
Therefore, the tolerances are established for combined residues of pyraflufen-ethyl, (ethyl 2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-4-fluorophenoxyacetate) and its acid metabolite, E-1 (2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-4- fluorophenoxyacetic acid), expressed as the ester equivalent, in or on wheat, forage and wheat, hay at 0.1 ppm; wheat, grain and wheat, straw at 0.01 ppm.
Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to FFDCA by FQPA, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) of FFDCA provides essentially the same process for persons to “object” to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d) of FFDCA, as was provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number OPP-2004-0094 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before July 12, 2004.
1.
Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm.104, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (703) 603-0061.
2.
EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement “when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.” For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305-5697, by e-mail at
If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of
3.
A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In response to a petition for rule making in this proceeding filed by Cox Radio, Inc. and CXR Holdings, Inc. and a counterproposal jointly filed by Kea Radio, Inc. and Pulaski Broadcasting, Inc. this document grants multiple channel substitutions and changes of community of license in Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee.
Effective June 4, 2004.
Robert Hayne, Mass Media Bureau (202) 418-2177.
This is a synopsis of the
This document reallots Channel 238A from Ashland, Alabama, to Hobson City, Alabama, and modifies the Station WASZ license to specify Hobson City as its community of license. To replace the loss of the sole local service at Ashland, this documents reallots Channel 252A from Sylacauga, Alabama, to Ashland, and modifies the Station WTRB-FM license to specify Ashland as its community of license. This document also reclassifies the Channel 253C allotment at Atlanta, Georgia, to Channel 253C0 and modifies the Station WSB-FM license to specify operation on Channel 253C0. This document substitutes Channel 252C3 for Channel 252A at Scottsboro, Alabama, and modifies the Station WKEA license to specify operation Channel 252C3. In order to accommodate the Channel 252C3 allotment at Scottsboro, this document substitutes Channel 252C3 for Channel 252A at Pulaski, Tennessee, reallots Channel 252C3 to Killen, Alabama, and modifies the Station WKSR-FM license to specify operation on Channel 252C3 at Killen. The reference coordinates for the Channel 239C2 allotment at Midfield, Alabama, are 33-24-50 and 87-01-05. The reference coordinates for the Channel 238A allotment at Hackleburg, Alabama, are 34-13-15 and 87-45-00. The reference coordinates for the Channel 245C allotment at Holly Pond, Alabama, are 34-29-23 and 86-37-38. The reference coordinates for the Channel 237A allotment at Coaling, Alabama, are 33-04-58 and 87-27-02. The reference coordinates for the Channel 223A allotment at Cordova, Alabama, are 33-38-55 and 87-09-19. The reference coordinates for the Channel 238A allotment at Hobson City, Alabama, are 33-29-30 and 85-52-55. The reference coordinates for the Channel 252A allotment at Ashland, Alabama, are 33-13-30 and 85-53-40. The reference coordinates for the Channel 253Co allotment at Atlanta, Georgia, are 33-45-33 and 84-20-05. The reference coordinates for the Channel 252C3 allotment at Scottsboro, Alabama, are 34-30-40 and 86-01-54. The reference coordinates for the Channel 252C3 allotment at Killen, Alabama, are 34-58-40 and 87-36-05.
Radio, Radio Broadcasting.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues a final rule to implement Amendment 63 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP). Amendment 63 moves skates from the “other species” list to the “target species” list in the FMP. By listing skates as a target species, management of a directed fishery for skates in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) is improved. The final rule revises the definition of “other species” and revises the listings for skates and “other species” to allow for the management of incidental catch of skates in groundfish fisheries and for groundfish in the skates directed fishery. This action is necessary to reduce the potential for overfishing skates. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, and other applicable laws.
Effective June 11, 2004.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA), and the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) prepared for this action, as well as the Other Species Considerations for the Gulf of Alaska in the November 1999 GOA Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report may be obtained from NMFS, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Lori Durall.
Melanie Brown, 907-586-7228 or
The groundfish fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the GOA are managed under the FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801,
The Council adopted Amendment 63 in October 2003, to prevent overfishing of skate species. Amendment 63 moves skates from the “other species” list to the “target species” list in the FMP. The Notice of Availability for Amendment 63 was published in the
In December 2003, the Council recommended proposed harvest specifications for skates in the GOA. These harvest specifications were published in the
This final rule will facilitate incidental catch management by clarifying the maximum retainable amounts (MRAs) of groundfish in the skate directed fishery and the MRAs for skates in other groundfish directed fisheries. This action revises Table 10 of 50 CFR part 679 to separate skates from the “other species” complex and to establish a separate listing of MRAs for skates. The listing of species groups under footnote 7 to Table 10 for the “other species” complex is revised to remove skates from the listing. Footnote 11 to Table 10 is added to the MRAs column and row for skates to identify the managed skate species and the reporting codes. These changes are necessary to clarify the retention limits of skates incidentally caught in other groundfish directed fisheries and the retention limits of other groundfish taken incidentally in the directed fishery for skates. No changes are made to the MRA that apply to skates or to other groundfish from the MRAs that apply to the “other species” complex.
The definition of “other species” in the regulations is revised to reference 50 CFR 679.20(e) for Tables 10 and 11 instead of 50 CFR 679.20(c), which does not apply to Tables 10 and 11.
Two letters of comment were received regarding Amendment 63. The letters contained seven separate comments which are summarized and responded to below.
TAC amounts in the GOA are established at or below the ABC amounts for groundfish species with reductions from the ABC dependent on socioeconomic and ecosystem concerns. The ABCs are developed by the Groundfish Plan Team based on conservative estimates of biomass, depending on the amount of information available for a species. The ABCs are reviewed by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and TACs are recommended by the Council's Advisory Panel (AP) and the Council. No socioeconomic or ecosystem concerns have been brought forward indicating the need for a reduction in TAC of 50 percent in 2004, and 10 percent each year, thereafter. For
(A) Each option for the management of skates analyzed in the EA prepared for this action contained two suboptions: set TACs at the ABC levels or lower levels sufficient to meet anticipated incidental catch needs in other directed fisheries during the fishing year, or set TACs at ABC levels. The first suboption would have the effect of prohibiting directed fishing for skates throughout the year. The second suboption would allow NMFS to establish a directed fishing allowance for skates after deducting anticipated incidental catch needs. In either case, retention of skates would be prohibited once the TACs are reached. The Council's recommended TACs would allow for a modest directed fishery of about 1,000 mt in each of two specified skate fisheries. When this directed fishing allowance is reached, skates would be placed on bycatch status, and directed fishing would be prohibited. For 2004, the Council recommended, and NMFS proposed (69 FR 10190, March 19, 2004) to set TACs for skates (totaling 6,996 mt) at or below the ABCs (totaling 8,144 mt) which are substantially below the 2003 TAC for “other species” (11,260 mt) in the GOA.
(B) The reduction of incidental catch is a goal of NMFS. By breaking skates out of the “other species” category in Table 10 of 50 CFR part 679, the MRAs will be specific to skate species, allowing for better monitoring and enforcement of incidental catch of skates in the directed fisheries for groundfish and of groundfish in the directed fishery for skates. NMFS will continue to work with the Council and the fishing industry to develop ways, including management measures and fishing practices, to reduce bycatch for all groundfish species.
(C) The GOA Groundfish Plan Team, the SSC, the AP, and the Council analyzed and considered Option 3 in the EA prepared for this action. Option 3 would create separate OFLs, ABCs, and TACs for three skate targets (big skates, longnose skates, and other skates) in the Eastern, Central, and Western management areas of the GOA. Of all the options considered, Option 3 would provide the most protection for skates in the GOA. In the GOA, one species is managed in this manner, Pacific ocean perch (POP). The rationale for the management of POP in this instance is that they are long lived, slow to mature, and could possibly be subject to localized depletion. This rationale also applies to skates. Option 3 is a viable method for management if enough information is available, and should continue to be considered in the future during the harvest specifications process.
Based on the lack of information available, the SSC recommended a single gulf-wide OFL for skates in 2004, and a single ABC for skates gulf-wide, except for big and longnose skates in the Central GOA. The SSC believes that big and longnose skates in the Central GOA require additional protection because the 2003 directed fishery for skates preferentially targeted these two species and fishing effort was concentrated in the Central GOA. The Council and its committees also wished to avoid a situation where finely divided target fisheries often have small regional quotas which, if unexpectedly reached, could have detrimental impacts on other more fully developed fisheries. The Plan
(D) The ABC for skates gulf-wide is not being increased. Rather this is the first time an ABC for skates in the GOA is being established. The proposed skates' gulf-wide ABCs (8,144 mt) and TACs (6,993 mt) are substantially lower than the 2003 TAC for “other species” in the GOA (11,260 mt). The conservative directed fishing allowances (DFA) resulting from the TACs will lead to lower harvests of skates in 2004 than in 2003.
(E) While the 2004 TAC for big and longnose skates in the Central GOA is higher than the actual 2003 catch, this does not mean that catches will increase. The commenter does not take into account that NMFS now will be able to set a DFA for skates that is far lower than what would have been possible if skates were managed as part of the “other species” assemblage. Catches of skates in the GOA in 2004 likely will be lower than 2003 because NMFS now will be able to limit the amount harvested in directed skate fisheries at a much lower level than when skates where managed together with “other species.”
(F) For the reasons discussed above, skate landings in the GOA in 2004 are expected to be lower than 2003 levels.
The Council has started work through its Target/Nontarget Committee and ad hoc group on how species should be identified, grouped, and managed based on available information. The committee is exploring factors necessary to support a directed fishery for a species, including preparation of stock assessments before a directed fishery is allowed to develop. Preparation of stock assessments for the remaining species in the “other species” complex (sharks, sculpins, octopi, and squid) likely would result in ABC recommendations totaling approximately 6,500 mt based on the most recent stock assessment (Other Species Considerations for the Gulf of Alaska in the November 1999 GOA SAFE report, see
No changes were made from the proposed rule in the final rule.
The Regional Administrator determined that Amendment 63 is necessary for the conservation and management of the GOA groundfish fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared a FRFA which incorporates the IRFA and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A copy of these analyses is available from NMFS (see
The need and objectives for this action are described above in the preamble to this final rule.
The proposed rule was published in the
The entities directly regulated by this action would be the fishing operations harvesting species in the “other species” complex in the GOA, using hook-and-line gear or trawls. These vessels may be targeting skates (the only species in the “other species” category currently fished as a target), or they may be harvesting skates and other species in the “other species” category incidentally to other targeted fishing operations; (e.g., fishing for Pacific cod or shallow water flatfish). Because any hook-and-line or trawl operation in the GOA may harvest the “other species” complex, the universe of potentially affected operations includes all GOA hook-and-line and trawl vessels.
In 2001, the universe of potentially affected vessels included 670 hook-and-line vessels and 138 trawlers. Of these, 650 were small hook-and-line catcher vessels, 15 were small hook-and-line catcher/processors, 120 were small trawl catcher vessels, and 4 were small trawl catcher/processors. The remaining 19 vessels are large vessels. This size determination is based on operation revenues from groundfish fishing in Alaska. Moreover, the data are not available to take account of affiliations between fishing operations and associated processors, or other associated fishing operations. For these reasons, these counts may overstate the numbers of small entities potentially directly regulated by the action. Average Alaska groundfish revenues, in 2001, for these small entities were $100,000 for
The directed skates fishery that emerged in 2003 is described in Section 1.0 of the EA (see
The Council considered the alternative of taking no action. This would have left skates in the “other species” category. The “other species” category includes additional species such as sculpin, shark, squid, and octopus. The “other species” TAC is set equal to 5 percent of the combined TACs for all target species in the GOA. In 2004, the “other species” TAC is 12,592 mt. This amount far exceeded the biologically desirable skate harvest in 2004. The 2004 OFL for all skate species together was projected to be 10,859 mt. The “other species” TAC also is higher than the OFLs would have been for individual species or species groups. Nevertheless, fishermen would have been able to harvest skates, or any of the individual skate species or species groups up to the “other species” TAC. This alternative was rejected because of the need for improved management controls to protect skate species, in light of the serious concerns about the health of the skate resource under a continuing directed fishery without sufficient management controls.
Nothing in the action would result in changes in reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
This action revises 50 CFR part 679, Table 10, which is used to determine the MRAs for skates in the directed fisheries for other groundfish and for other groundfish in the directed fishery for skates. This action does not require any additional compliance from small entities. This action gives effect to separate inseason actions which may be taken to limit the harvest of skates. Copies of this final rule are available from NMFS (see
Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
16 U.S.C. 773
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final 2004 harvest specifications for skates and associated management measures; closures.
NMFS announces final 2004 harvest specifications for skates and associated management measures for the skate fishery of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to establish harvest limits and associated management measures for skates during the 2004 fishing year and to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the GOA (FMP). The intended effect of this action is to conserve and manage the skate resources in the GOA in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Effective at 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), June 11, 2004, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t, December 31, 2004.
Copies of the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) prepared for this action and the Final 2003 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report, dated November 2003, are available from NMFS, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Lori Durall.
Tom Pearson, 907-481-1780 or e-mail at
NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the GOA under the FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801,
In October 2003, the Council made final recommendations on Amendment 63 to the FMP and submitted it for review by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) in November 2003. The Council proposed Amendment 63 to move skates from the “other species” category to the target species category in the FMP. By establishing skates as a target species, a directed fishery for skates in the GOA could be managed to reduce the potential of overfishing skates while providing an opportunity for achieving a long term sustainable yield from the skate resource in the GOA. NMFS published a Notice of Availability for Amendment 63 on December 2, 2003 (68 FR 67390) and a proposed rule to implement Amendment 63 on January 6, 2004 (69 FR 614). The Secretary approved Amendment 63 on February 27, 2004.
The FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS, after consultation with the Council, to specify annually the total allowable catch (TAC) for each target species and for the “other species” category, the sum of which must be within the optimum yield (OY) range of 116,000 to 800,000 metric tons (mt) (see § 679.20(a)(1)(ii)). Regulations at § 679.20(c)(3)(i) further require NMFS to publish annually the final annual TAC. NMFS published the final 2004 groundfish harvest specifications in the
The proposed harvest specifications for skates in the GOA were published in the
The final ABC and TAC levels for each species group are based on the best available biological and socioeconomic information, including methods used to calculate stock biomass, assumed distribution of stock biomass, and estimated incidental catch in other directed groundfish fisheries. In December 2003, the Council, its Advisory Panel (AP), and its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed current biological and harvest information about the condition of groundfish stocks in the GOA. Most of this information was compiled initially by the Council's GOA Plan Team and is presented in the final 2003 SAFE report for the GOA groundfish fisheries, dated November 2003. The Plan Team annually produces such a document as the first step in the process of specifying TACs. The SAFE report contains a review of the latest scientific analyses and estimates of each species' biomass and other biological parameters, as well as summaries of the available information on the GOA ecosystem and the economic condition of the groundfish fisheries off Alaska. From these data and analyses, the Plan Team estimates an ABC for each species category.
The Plan Team recommended a single gulfwide overfishing level (OFL) for all skate species, a single gulfwide ABC for “other skates” (Genus
With respect to the final 2004 harvest specifications for the groundfish fishery of the GOA, published on February 27, 2004 (69 FR 9261), this action would: (1) raise the gulfwide total OFL levels by 10,859 mt, from 649,460 mt to 660,319 mt, (2) raise the gulfwide total ABC levels by 8,144 mt, from 498,948 mt to 507,092 mt, (3) raise the “other species” TAC by 350 mt (5 percent of 6,993 mt), from 12,592 mt to 12,942 mt, (4) raise the gulfwide total TAC levels by 7,343 mt (6,993 mt + 350 mt), from 264,433 mt to 271,776 mt, which is within the required OY range of 116,000 mt to 800,000 mt, and (5) raise the non-exempt AFA catcher vessel “other species” sideboard limitation gulfwide total by 3 mt, from 113 mt to 116 mt.
NMFS is adopting 4 management measures for skates that currently apply to “other species.” First, NMFS published a proposed rule implementing Amendment 63 to the FMP on January 6, 2004 (69 FR 614) which proposed to establish the maximum retainable amount of incidental catch for skates equal to that for “other species” (Table 10 to part 679—Gulf of Alaska Retainable Percentages). These management measures will be implemented by the final rule for Amendment 63, which will be published separately in the
Second, halibut bycatch mortality in the directed trawl fishery targeting skates will accrue to PSC limits established for the shallow-water complex, and bycatch mortality in the directed hook-and-line fishery targeting skates will accrue to the limits established for hook-and-line gear other than demersal shelf rockfish.
Third, the halibut discard mortality rates will be based on those for “other species” i.e., 13 percent for hook-and-line gear, 61 percent for trawl gear, and 17 percent for pot gear.
Finally, the sideboard limitations for non-exempt AFA catcher vessels for skates gulfwide will be based on the ratio of 1995-1997 non-exempt AFA catcher vessel catch of “other species” to 1995-1997 “other species” TAC, which is 0.9 percent. These amounts are 33 mt (3,709 mt × 0.009) for all skates gulfwide, except Big and Longnose skates in the Central Regulatory Area, and 30 mt (3,284 mt × 0.009) for Big and Longnose skates in the Central Regulatory Area. Based on these sideboard limitations, and in accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), NMFS has established a directed fishing allowance of 0 mt for these targets. Therefore, NMFS is closing directed fishing for all skates gulfwide for the duration of the 2004 fishing year by non-exempt AFA catcher vessels.
NMFS received one letter of comment in response to the proposed 2004 harvest specifications for skates in the GOA (69 FR 10190, March 4, 2004) and the Environmental Assessment/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/IRFA) for a Revision to the Skate Harvest Specifications for the Year 2004, implemented under the authority of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. The letter contained four separate comments concerning the proposed 2004 harvest specifications for skates and their effect on the “other species” category TAC in the GOA that are summarized and responded to below. The letter also incorporated by reference comments that were submitted on the notice of availability for Amendment 63 (68 FR 67390, December 2, 2003). Those comments are summarized and responded to in the final rule implementing Amendment 63.
Based on the lack of information available regarding skates, the SSC recommended that a single gulfwide
Each option for the management of skates analyzed in the EA prepared for this action considered two suboptions. Suboption 1 would set TACs at the ABC level or a lower level sufficient to meet anticipated incidental catch needs in other directed fisheries during the fishing year. Suboption 1 would have the effect of prohibiting directed fishing for skates throughout the year. Suboption 2 would set TACs at ABC levels, allowing the Regional Administrator, after deducting anticipated incidental catch needs, to establish a directed fishing allowance for skates. The Council recommended Suboption 2. In either case, the retention of skates would be prohibited once TAC levels are reached. The Council's recommended TACs would allow for a modest directed fishery of about 1,000 mt in each of two specified skate fisheries. When this directed fishing allowance is reached, skates would be placed on bycatch status and directed fishing would be prohibited. The Council recommended, and NMFS is establishing, TACs for skates (totaling 6,993 mt) that are below ABC levels (totaling 8,144 mt) and substantially below the 2003 TAC for “other species” (11,260 mt) in the GOA.
These skate specifications do not constitute a risk-prone management approach. OFL and ABC levels are calculated using a risk-adverse tier 5 assessment where the OFL is set at the level estimated to be the natural mortality rate multiplied by the biomass estimate of skates. The ABC is set at 75 percent of that amount. The directed fishing allowances are set at conservative levels which include for the first time, estimates of incidental catch in the halibut fishery. Finally, NMFS assumes that the mortality of all groundfish, including skates, discarded at sea is 100 percent. This is a conservation assumption because skates are robust fish, with mortality rates that could be similar to or better than those of halibut released at sea in similar conditions. In the unlikely event that the entire TAC for skates were harvested, the conservative basis for setting the TACs would prevent the skate stocks from being depleted to levels considered near extinction.
In instances where directed fisheries have developed rapidly for species in the “other species” category, the Council has recommended, and NMFS has implemented, FMP amendments to remove those targeted species from the “other species” category so that they can be managed separately. This was the case in 1992, when the Council recommended, and NMFS implemented, Amendment 31 which removed Atka mackerel from the “other species” category, and more recently, when the Council recommended Amendment 63 in 2003 which removed skates from the “other species” category. If a single species, such as sharks, in the “other species” category was targeted to the exclusion of other species in the category at levels up to the “other species” TAC, then such harvest levels probably would be unsustainable and detrimental to the targeted fish stock and the Council and NMFS likely would act to manage such harvests at sustainable levels.
Rather than approach concerns about “other species” in a piecemeal fashion, the Council is developing an FMP amendment with a more comprehensive approach toward the management of nontarget species. An ad hoc committee has suggested that one management approach could be to place the newly formed nontarget species category on bycatch status year round and prohibit directed fishing for these species until an adequate stock assessment for the species could be prepared that demonstrated what (if any) directed fishing activities would be sustainable. Species that could be considered for inclusion in the nontarget species categories are: (1) all the species currently in the “other species” category, such as sharks, (2) species for which stock assessments are currently poor, such as Atka mackerel in the GOA, (3) species that are a very minor component of a larger category, such as deep water sole in the deep water flatfish category, (4) species that are uncommon in the GOA or at the edge of their geographic range, such as several species in the other slope rockfish category, (5) all forage fish, and (6) nonspecified species such as grenadiers, wrymouths, prowfish, etc.
Not implementing Amendment 63 would place skate species at risk of overfishing. The implementation of Amendment 63 will improve the protection for skates, and will not adversely impact the species in the “other species” category because of the lack of interest in a directed fishery on these species. NMFS will carefully monitor the harvest of “other species” to determine if a directed fishery develops on any of the species in this complex and to determine what appropriate steps may be needed to prevent overfishing.
The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that this final specification is necessary for the conservation and management of the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI and GOA. The Regional Administrator also has determined that this final specification is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. No relevant Federal rules exist that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.
A FRFA was prepared for the final 2004 harvest specifications for skates to address the statutory requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996.
The proposed rule was published in the
The entities directly regulated by this action, if adopted, would be the fishing operations harvesting species in the “other species” complex in the GOA, using hook-and-line or trawl gear. These vessels may be targeting skates (the only species in the “other species” category currently fished as a target), or they may be harvesting skates and other species in the “other species” category incidental to other targeted fishing operations (e.g., fishing for Pacific cod or shallow-water flatfish). Since any hook-and-line or trawl operation in the GOA may harvest the “other species” complex, the universe of potentially affected operations includes all GOA hook-and-line and trawl vessels. Pot gear is not an effective gear for targeting skates because regulations limit the size of tunnel openings to no more than 36 inches (91 cm) in circumference.
In 2001, the universe of potentially affected vessels included 670 hook-and-line vessels and 138 trawlers. Of these, 650 were small hook-and-line catcher vessels, 15 were small hook-and-line catcher/processors, 120 were small trawl catcher vessels, and 4 were small trawl catcher/processors. This size determination is based on operation revenues from groundfish fishing in Alaska. Moreover, the data are not available to take account of affiliations between fishing operations and associated processors, or other associated fishing operations. For these reasons, these counts may overstate the numbers of small entities potentially directly regulated by the proposed action. Average Alaska groundfish revenues, in 2001, for these small entities were $100,000 for hook-and-line catcher vessels, $1.82 million for hook-and-line catcher/processors, $370,000 for trawl catcher vessels, and $1.80 million for trawl catcher/processors. The directed skate fishery emerged in 2003; 77 hook-and-line catcher vessels, 53 trawl catcher vessels, 13 hook-and-line catcher/processors, and 10 trawl catcher/processors, took part in the fishery in 2003, producing an estimated ex-vessel gross revenue of about $1.7 million. This suggests average revenues for these vessels were about $11,000.
Alternative 1 creates a single GOA-wide OFL and ABC for all skate species. This alternative fails to protect the stocks. It provides no protection against localized depletion or against selective fishing for larger skates. The National Environmental Policy Act analysis determined that this alternative had a “significantly adverse” environmental impact.
Alternative 2 creates three GOA-wide OFLs for skate species or species groups (Big skates, Longnose skates, and Other skates) and three GOA-wide ABCs for the same species or species groups. This alternative did not provide protection against spatial depletion of skate stocks, particularly those in the Central GOA.
Alternative 3 creates a separate OFL and a separate ABC for each of the species and species groups defined under Option 2, in the Western, Central and Eastern management areas. This alternative provided the greatest level of protection for skate stocks, however, the multiplicity of relatively small OFLs under this alternative created the greatest potential for the closure of a fishery harvesting skates incidentally while targeting another species.
Alternative 4 combines the Big skate and Longnose skate management area-specific OFLs and ABCs of Alternative 3, with the GOA-wide OFL and ABC for Other skates in Alternative 2. It therefore falls between these in terms of its adverse impacts on small entities. This alternative aggregates the “Other skates” OFLs across all three areas, but retains separate Big and Longnose skate OFLs in each of the three management areas (a total of six OFLs). These separate OFLs were a source of concern to industry.
Alternative 5 creates a GOA-wide OFL for all species combined. ABCs would be established in each management area in the GOA for a Big/Longnose skate grouping. A GOA-wide ABC would be established for “Other” skates. In the Central GOA a TAC would be established for combined Big and Longnose skate catch. This TAC will equal 10 percent of the estimated biomass of Big skates in the Central Area (this would have been the OFL for Big skates in this area if such an OFL had been promulgated). This option was meant to be in place for one year, and to be reviewed at the end of 2004, in light of species-specific harvest data to be collected in 2004. This alternative
The action does not impose new recordkeeping or reporting requirements on small entities. The analysis did not reveal any Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed action.
This action is authorized under 50 CFR 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 773
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the specified Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (Bell) helicopters. The AD would require a one-time inspection of the adjustable stop screws of the magnetic brake assembly; repairing, as appropriate, certain mechanical damage to the cyclic and collective flight control magnetic brake arm assembly (arm assembly), if necessary; and installing the stop screw with the proper adhesive, adjusting the arm assembly travel and applying slippage marks. This proposal is prompted by reports that the magnetic brake adjustable screws have backed out, which limited travel of the arm assembly. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to detect loose adjustable stop screws, that could result in limiting the travel of the cyclic and collective arm assembly, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Comments must be received on or before July 12, 2004.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2004-SW-03-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You may also send comments electronically to the Rules Docket at the following address:
Charles Harrison, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft Standards Staff, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0110, telephone (817) 222-5128, fax (817) 222-5961.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their mailed comments submitted in response to this proposal must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2004-SW-03-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
This document proposes adopting a new AD for Bell Model 206L-1 and 206L-3 helicopters with Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) Kit, part number (P/N) 206-705-001, -101, or -103, installed, and all delivered spare magnetic brakes, P/N 204-001-376-003, manufactured by Memcor Truohm, Inc. (M.T. Inc.) as P/N MP 498-3, installed. The AD would require, within 100 hours time-in-service or within 90 days, whichever occurs first, and before installation of an affected magnetic brake, a one-time inspection of the adjustable stop screws of the magnetic brake assembly; repairing, as appropriate, certain mechanical damage to the arm assembly, if necessary; and installing the stop screw with the proper adhesive, adjusting the arm assembly travel and applying slippage marks. This proposal is prompted by reports that the magnetic brake adjustable screws have backed out, which limited travel of the arm assembly. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to detect loose adjustable stop screws, that could result in limiting the travel of the cyclic and collective arm assembly, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Transport Canada, the airworthiness authority for Canada, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on Bell Model 206L-1 and 206L-3 helicopters with IFR Kit, P/N 206-705-001, -101, or -103, installed, and all delivered spare magnetic brakes, P/N 204-001-376-003, manufactured by Memcor Truohm, Inc. as P/N MP 498-3. Transport Canada advises that the stop screws, P/N MS51959-3, of the magnetic brake, P/N 204-001-376-003 (Memcor Truohm P/N MP 498-3), were installed without the proper adhesive.
Bell has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 206L-01-122, dated October 3, 2001, which specifies a one-time inspection of the magnetic brake adjustable stop screw, P/N MS51959-3; repairing any arm assembly mechanical damage created by the screws; and installing the stop screw with the proper adhesive and adjusting the arm assembly shaft travel. Transport Canada classified this alert service bulletin as mandatory and issued AD No. CF-2002-16, dated March 4, 2002, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in Canada.
This helicopter model is manufactured in Canada and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral agreement. Pursuant to the applicable bilateral agreement, Transport Canada has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of Transport Canada, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this
This previously described unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design registered in the United States. Therefore, the proposed AD would require inspecting the adjustable stop screws of the magnetic brake assembly, repairing certain mechanical damage to the arm assembly, and installing the stop screw with the proper adhesive, adjusting the arm assembly travel and applying slippage marks. The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the alert service bulletin described previously.
The FAA estimates that 577 helicopters of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 3 work hours per helicopter to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $3,785. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $298,500, assuming that 75 helicopters in the U.S. will require the actions described in this AD.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the economic evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive to read as follows:
To detect loose adjustable stop screws, which could result in limiting the travel of the cyclic and collective arm assembly, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:
(a) Inspect and, if necessary, repair, adjust, and apply slippage marks to the magnetic brake assembly by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 6. through 12., in Bell Helicopter Textron Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 206L-01-122, dated October 3, 2001, except if damage to the arm assembly exceeds 0.030 inch (0.762 mm), replace the magnetic brake assembly with an airworthy magnetic brake assembly. Contacting the manufacturer is not required.
(b) To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Contact the Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, for information about previously approved alternative methods of compliance.
The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada (Canada) AD No. CF-2002-16, dated March 4, 2002.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the supersedure of an existing airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain EMBRAER Model EMB-135 and -145 series airplanes. That AD currently requires a one-time inspection to detect incorrect wiring of the electrical connectors to the pressure switches and cartridges on the fire extinguisher bottles for the engines and the auxiliary power unit (APU); disconnection and reconnection of the wiring, as necessary; and adjustment of the length of the harnesses on the fire extinguisher bottles to avoid future misconnections. This action would require additional adjustment of the length of the harnesses; installation of a color-coded identification system to avoid misconnections during maintenance; and a functional test of the engine fire extinguisher system. This action would also expand the applicability of the existing AD to include additional airplanes. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent the issuance of erroneous commands or the receipt of erroneous information pertaining to the fire extinguisher system for the engines and the APU, which could result in the inability to put out a fire in an engine or in the APU. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by June 11, 2004.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-NM-351-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1175; fax (425) 227-1149.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2002-NM-351-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-NM-351-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
On May 17, 2001, the FAA issued AD 2001-10-15, amendment 39-12241 (66 FR 28646, May 24, 2001), applicable to certain EMBRAER Model EMB-135 and -145 series airplanes. That AD requires a one-time inspection to detect incorrect wiring of the electrical connectors to the pressure switches and cartridges on the fire extinguisher bottles for the engines and the auxiliary power unit (APU); disconnection and reconnection of the wiring, as necessary; and adjustment of the length of the harnesses on the fire extinguisher bottles to avoid future misconnections. That action was prompted by the issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information issued by the Departmento de Aviacao Civil (DAC), the Brazilian civil airworthiness authority. The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent the issuance of erroneous commands or the receipt of erroneous information pertaining to the fire extinguisher system for the engines and APU, which could result in the inability to put out a fire in an engine or in the APU.
Since the issuance of that AD, the manufacturer has issued new service information which contains new requirements.
EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 145-26-0010, Change 03, dated August 28, 2002, which describes procedures for modifying the electrical connectors and wire harnesses for the engine and APU fire extinguisher bottle cartridges, and pressure switches. The procedures for modification include adjusting the length of the harness system. Following this adjustment, the modification includes installing identification sleeves on the harness and the electrical connectors of the harness, and installing matching color-coded identification stickers on the fire extinguisher bottles to identify the outlet and switch connections. The service bulletin also provides procedures for replacing certain clamps with new, larger clamps or installing tiedown straps; installing new terminals if necessary; and carrying out a functional test of the engine fire extinguisher system.
The DAC classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued Brazilian airworthiness directive 2001-09-01R1, dated June 26, 2002, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Brazil.
EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-26-0010 refers to Pacific Scientific Service Bulletin 26-1130d, dated June 18, 2001, as an additional source of service information for accomplishment of the installation of the color-coded identification stickers. The Pacific Scientific service bulletin is included in the EMBRAER service bulletin.
These airplane models are manufactured in Brazil and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the DAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would supersede AD 2001-10-15 to continue to require a one-time inspection to detect incorrect wiring of electrical connectors to the pressure switches and cartridges on the fire extinguisher bottles for the engines and the APU; disconnection and reconnection of the wiring, as necessary; and adjustment of the length of the harnesses on the fire extinguisher bottles to avoid future misconnections. This proposed AD would require an additional adjustment of the harnesses; and installing color-coded identification sleeves and heat-shrinkable sleeves to the subject electrical harness connectors, and color-coded stickers to identify the functions of the engine and APU fire extinguisher bottles. This proposed AD also would require replacing clamps with new,
On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. Because we have now included this material in part 39, we no longer need to include it in each individual AD; therefore, paragraphs (b) and (c) and Notes 1 and 3 of AD 2001-10-15 are not included in this proposed AD.
There are approximately 435 airplanes of U.S. registry that would be affected by this proposed AD.
The actions that are currently required by AD 2001-10-15 and continued in this proposed AD take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $84,825, or $195 per airplane.
The new actions that are proposed in this AD action would take approximately 7 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $93 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $238,380, or $548 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the current or proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-12241 (66 FR 28646, May 24, 2001), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD), to read as follows:
To prevent the issuance of erroneous commands or the receipt of erroneous information pertaining to the fire extinguisher system for the engines and auxiliary power unit (APU), which could result in the inability to put out a fire in an engine or in the APU, accomplish the following:
(a) For airplanes listed in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-26-0009, dated January 26, 2001: Within 100 flight hours after June 8, 2001 (the effective date of AD 2001-10-15, amendment 39-12241), perform a one-time general visual inspection to detect incorrect wiring of electrical connectors to the pressure switches and cartridges on the fire extinguisher bottles for the engines and the APU, in accordance with paragraph 3.D. of the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-26-0009, dated January 26, 2001; or Change 01, dated June 25, 2001.
For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is defined as: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight, and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.”
(1) If the wiring connections are correct: Prior to further flight, adjust the length of the harnesses to the fire extinguisher bottles, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(2) If the wiring connections are incorrect: Prior to further flight, re-connect them and adjust the length of the harnesses to the fire extinguisher bottles, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(b) For airplanes not subject to paragraph (a) of this AD: Within 100 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, perform a one-time general visual inspection to detect incorrect wiring of electrical connectors to the pressure switches and cartridges on the fire extinguisher bottles for the engines and the APU, in accordance with paragraph 3.D. of the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-26-0009, Change 01, dated June 25, 2001.
(1) If the wiring connections are correct: Prior to further flight, adjust the length of the harnesses to the fire extinguisher bottles, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(2) If the wiring connections are incorrect: Prior to further flight, re-connect them and adjust the length of the harnesses to the fire extinguisher bottles, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(c) For all airplanes: Within 4,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, modify the electrical harnesses and electrical connectors of the engine and APU fire extinguisher system, including installing identification sleeves and color-coded identification stickers, in accordance with
(d) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane, engine fire extinguisher bottle part number (P/N) 33600057-1 or P/N 33600057-5, serial number (S/N) 26916D1 through 42300D2 inclusive; and APU fire extinguisher bottles P/N 30100050-1 or P/N 30100050-5, SN 301209A1 through SN 38950A1, inclusive; unless color-coded stickers are installed in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD.
(e) Actions accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-26-0010, dated June 25, 2001; Change 01, dated January 3, 2002; or Change 02, dated June 5, 2002; are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in this AD.
(f) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
The subject of this AD is addressed in Brazilian airworthiness directive 2001-09-01R1, dated June 26, 2002.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the supersedure of an existing airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 series airplanes, that currently requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate life limits for certain items and inspections to detect fatigue cracking in certain structures. This action would require revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate updated Airworthiness Limitation Items, Safe Life Items, and Certification Maintenance Requirements. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to ensure the structural integrity of the airplane by ensuring that fatigue cracking of certain structural elements is detected and corrected in a timely manner. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by June 11, 2004.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-NM-280-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Fokker Services B.V., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1137; fax (425) 227-1149.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2002-NM-280-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-NM-280-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
On October 22, 2001, the FAA issued AD 2001-21-04, amendment 39-12475 (66 FR 54656, October 30, 2001), applicable to all Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 series airplanes, to require revising the Airworthiness Limitations section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate life limits for certain items and inspections to detect fatigue cracking in certain structures. That action was prompted by issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information by the Civil Aviation Authority—The Netherlands (CAA-NL), which is the airworthiness authority for The Netherlands. The requirements of that AD are intended to ensure that fatigue cracking of certain structural elements is detected and corrected. Such fatigue cracking could
Fokker Services B.V. has issued Issue 2 of Report SE-623, “Fokker 70/100 Airworthiness Limitation Items and Safe Life Items,” dated September 1, 2001, of the Fokker 70/100 Maintenance Review Board (MRB) document. (The existing AD requires incorporation of the original issue of Report SE-623, dated June 1, 2000, into the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.) Issue 2 of Report SE-623 updates certain Airworthiness Limitations Items (ALIs) and Safe Life Items (SLIs). (The items in this report are now contained in Section 6 of the Fokker 70/100 MRB document, Revision 10, dated October 1, 2001.)
Fokker Services B.V. has also issued Issue 5 of Report SE-473, “Fokker 70/100 Certification Maintenance Requirements,” dated July 16, 2001, of Appendix 1 of the Fokker 70/100 Maintenance Review Board (MRB) document. Report SE-473, Issue 5, contains the Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs) for systems on Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 series airplanes. (The items in this report are now contained in Section 6 of the Fokker 70/100 MRB document, Revision 10.)
The CAA-NL classified Reports SE-623, Issue 2, and SE-473, Issue 5, as mandatory, and issued Dutch airworthiness directive BLA 2002-062, dated May 31, 2002, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the Netherlands.
These airplane models are manufactured in the Netherlands and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA-NL has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the CAA-NL, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would supersede AD 2001-21-04 to continue to require revising the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate life limits for certain items and inspections to detect fatigue cracking in certain structures. The proposed AD also would require revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate updated ALIs, SLIs, and CMRs. The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with Report SE-623, “Fokker 70/100 Airworthiness Limitation Items and Safe Life Items,” and Report SE-473, “Fokker 70/100 Certification Maintenance Requirements,” described previously.
On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. Because we have now included this material in part 39, we no longer need to include it in each individual AD. Therefore, Note 1 and paragraph (d) of AD 2001-21-04 are not included in this AD, and paragraph (c) of AD 2001-21-04 has been revised and included as paragraph (f) of this AD.
There are approximately 74 airplanes of U.S. registry that would be affected by this proposed AD.
The ALS revision that is currently required by AD 2001-21-04 takes approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this currently required action on U.S. operators is estimated to be $4,810, or $65 per airplane.
The new actions that are proposed in this AD action would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed new requirement of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $4,810, or $65 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the current or proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-12475 (66 FR 54656, October 30, 2001), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD), to read as follows:
To ensure that fatigue cracking of certain structural elements is detected and corrected, and to ensure the structural integrity of affected airplanes, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 30 days after December 4, 2001 (the effective date of AD 2001-21-04, amendment 39-12475), revise the Airworthiness Limitations section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating Report SE-623, “Fokker 70/100 Airworthiness Limitations Items and Safe Life Items,” of Appendix 1 of Fokker 70/100 Maintenance Review Board (MRB) document, dated June 1, 2000.
(b) Except as provided by paragraph (c) of this AD: After the actions specified in paragraph (a) of this AD have been accomplished, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be approved for the structural elements specified in the documents listed in paragraph (a) of this AD.
(c) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the Airworthiness Limitations section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating Report SE-623, “Fokker 70/100 Airworthiness Limitations Items and Safe Life Items,” Issue 2, dated September 1, 2001; and Report SE-473, “Fokker 70/100 Certification Maintenance Requirements,” Issue 5, dated July 16, 2001; into Section 6 of the Fokker 70/100 MRB document. (These reports are already incorporated into Fokker 70/100 MRB document, Revision 10, dated October 1, 2001.) Once the actions required by this paragraph have been accomplished, the original issue of Report SE-623, “Fokker 70/100 Airworthiness Limitations Items and Safe Life Items,” dated June 1, 2000, may be removed from the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
(d) If the requirements of paragraph (c) of this AD are accomplished within the compliance time specified in paragraph (a) of this AD, it is not necessary to accomplish the requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.
(e) After the actions specified in paragraph (c) of this AD have been accomplished, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be approved for the structural elements specified in the documents listed in paragraph (c) of this AD.
(f) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
The subject of this AD is addressed in Dutch airworthiness directive 2002-062, dated May 31, 2002.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Jetstream) Model 4101 airplanes. This proposal would require a test for free movement of the capsule/bearing of the nose landing gear (NLG), and related investigative, significant, and corrective actions. This action is necessary to prevent failure of the NLG to extend fully, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane during landing. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by June 11, 2004.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2004-NM-46-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from British Aerospace Regional Aircraft American Support, 13850 Mclearen Road, Herndon, Virginia 20171. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1175; fax (425) 227-1149.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2004-NM-46-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Jetstream) Model 4101 airplanes. The CAA advises that there have been several incidents in which the nose landing gear (NLG) did not fully extend, necessitating an emergency landing. Investigation suggests that the cause may be related to binding between the upper and lower sliding/support bearings and the NLG capsule that is part of the shortening mechanism. High friction at the upper bearing or lower bearing may prevent free movement of the NLG capsule. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the NLG to extend fully, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane during landing.
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued Alert Service Bulletin J41-A32-082, Revision 1, dated February 20, 2004. That service bulletin describes procedures for a test for free movement of the NLG capsule/bearing, and related investigative, significant, and corrective actions. These actions are described below.
The BAE Systems service bulletin refers to APPH Service Bulletin AIR83586-32-22, Revision 1, dated February 2004, as an additional source of service information. Paragraph 2.A. (Part 1) of that service bulletin describes procedures for the initial test for free movement of the NLG capsule. Paragraph 2.B. (Part 2) of that service bulletin describes procedures for related investigative, significant, and corrective actions following the initial test. These related investigative, significant, and corrective actions entail cleaning and re-greasing the bearings, and repeating the test for free movement (
If the NLG capsule/bearing moves freely during the initial test, the BAE Systems service bulletin specifies a compliance time of 3,000 flight hours for the related investigative, significant, and corrective actions (Parts 1 and 2 of the APPH service bulletin). If the movement of the NLG capsule/bearing is restricted during the initial test, the BAE Systems service bulletin specifies that the related investigative and corrective actions (Parts 1 and 2 of the APPH service bulletin) must be done before further flight. If the capsule moves freely during the test immediately following accomplishment of Part 2, the BAE Systems service bulletin specifies repeating the test within 600 flight hours.
Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletins is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. The CAA classified the service bulletins as mandatory and issued British emergency airworthiness directive G-2004-0003, dated February 24, 2004, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the United Kingdom.
This airplane model is manufactured in the United Kingdom and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA has kept us informed of the situation described above. We have examined the findings of the CAA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the BAE Systems service bulletin described previously, except as discussed below.
Although the service bulletins specify that operators may contact BAE Systems or APPH for disposition of certain repair conditions, this proposal would require operators to repair those conditions per a method approved by either the FAA or the CAA (or its delegated agent). In light of the type of repair that would be required to address the unsafe condition, and consistent with existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, we have determined that, for this proposed AD, a repair approved by either the FAA or the CAA would be acceptable for compliance with this proposed AD.
This proposed AD refers to the flow chart in the BAE Systems service bulletin for compliance times for certain actions. The flow chart does not clearly state a compliance time for applicable corrective actions if the movement of the NLG capsule/bearing is restricted during any test. Therefore, paragraph (c) of this AD specifies that, if the movement of the NLG capsule/bearing is restricted during any test, the applicable corrective actions must be accomplished before further flight.
For compliance times, the flow chart in the BAE Systems service bulletin specifies a certain number of “flying hours.” Paragraph (c) of this proposed AD specifies performing the actions at the compliance times in the flow chart of the BAE Systems service bulletin. However, where the flow chart specifies “flying hours,” the definition in this proposed AD would be “flight hours.” This decision is based on our determination that “flying hours” may be interpreted differently by different operators. We find that our proposed terminology is generally understood within the industry.
Although the Accomplishment Instructions of the BAE Systems service bulletin describe procedures for submitting a form reporting inspection results to the manufacturer, this proposed AD would not require those actions.
We estimate that 57 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 6 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $22,230, or $390 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
To prevent failure of the nose landing gear (NLG) to extend fully, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane during landing, accomplish the following:
(a) The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means BAE Systems Alert Service Bulletin J41-A32-082, Revision 1, dated February 20, 2004.
(1) The term “flow chart,” as used in this AD, means the flow chart following paragraph 1.M. of BAE Systems Alert Service Bulletin J41-A32-082, Revision 1.
(2) BAE Systems Alert Service Bulletin J41-A32-082, Revision 1, refers to APPH Service Bulletin AIR83586-32-22, Revision 1, dated February 2004, as an additional source of service information for accomplishing the actions in the BAE Systems service bulletin.
(3) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD per the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems Alert Service Bulletin J41-A32-082, dated February 11, 2004, are considered acceptable for the corresponding actions required by this AD. (The original issue of BAE Systems Alert Service Bulletin J41-A32-082 refers to the original issue of APPH Service Bulletin AIR83586-32-22, dated February 2004, as an additional source of service information for accomplishing the actions in the BAE Systems service bulletin.)
(4) Where BAE Systems Alert Service Bulletin J41-A32-082, Revision 1, and APPH Service Bulletin AIR83586-32-22, Revision 1, specify to contact BAE Systems or APPH for repair instructions, before further flight, repair per a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, or the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (or its delegated agent).
(5) Where the flow chart in BAE Systems Alert Service Bulletin J41-A32-082, Revision 1, specifies “flying hours,” for the purposes of this AD, this means “flight hours.”
(6) Where BAE Systems Alert Service Bulletin J41-A32-082, Revision 1, specifies to complete a reporting form and return it to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action.
(b) Within 300 flight cycles or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Perform a test for free movement of the NLG capsule/bearing, as specified in the flow chart of the service bulletin. Do all of the actions per the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
As specified in the flow chart in the service bulletin, only the actions in paragraph 2.A. (Part 1) of the Accomplishment Instructions of APPH Service Bulletin AIR83586-32-22, Revision 1, dated February 2004, are required by paragraph (a) of this AD.
(c) Perform related investigative, significant, and corrective actions as specified in the flow chart of the service bulletin, at the compliance times specified in the flow chart of the service bulletin. Do all of the actions per the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, except as provided by paragraph (a)(4) of this AD. During any test, if the movement of the capsule/bearing is restricted, the applicable corrective actions must be accomplished before further flight.
(d) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an NLG on any airplane unless it is inspected per the requirements of this AD.
(e) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
The subject of this AD is addressed in British emergency airworthiness directive G-2004-0003, dated February 24, 2004.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Proposed rules.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission or CFTC) is proposing several amendments to its large trader reporting rules. First, the Commission is proposing to amend part 15 of its rules to introduce additional contracts and to raise the reporting levels at which futures commission merchants, clearing members and foreign brokers must file large trader reports in certain commodities. Second, the Commission is proposing to amend its rules to address the manner in which certain new products, such as exchanges of futures for swaps, should be reported under the Commission's rules. Third, the Commission is proposing to amend its rules to address current data transmission practices, to foster innovative means of filing Forms 102 by reporting firms, and to eliminate Form 103 for the submission of special call data by large traders. Finally, the Commission is proposing a number of other technical and clarifying amendments to the large trader reporting rules.
Comments must be received by June 11, 2004.
Comments should be sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, attention: Office of the Secretariat. Comments may be sent by facsimile to 202-418-5521, or by e-mail to
Gary Martinaitis, Associate Deputy Director for Market Information, Market Surveillance Section (telephone 202-418-5209, e-mail
The Commission's large-trader reporting system is an important Commission oversight tool. The rules governing this system require futures commission merchants, clearing members and foreign brokers (collectively referred to as reporting firms) to report to the Commission position information of the largest futures and options traders and require the traders themselves to provide certain identifying information. Reporting levels are set in the designated futures and option markets under the authority of sections 4i and 4c of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA or Act) to ensure that the Commission receives adequate information to carry out its market surveillance programs. These market surveillance programs are designed to detect and to prevent price manipulation and market congestion and to enforce speculative position limits pursuant to section 4a of the Act. They also provide information regarding the overall hedging and speculative use of, and foreign participation in, the futures markets and other matters of public interest.
Generally, the firm carrying a trader's reportable position files large trader reports.
The general default reporting level for all positions, including positions in broad-based security indices, is currently 25 contracts. The Commission is proposing to enumerate a new default reporting level of 200 contracts specifically for broad-based security indices. Under this proposal, the following enumerated commodities would no longer be individually itemized in Rule 15.03 and therefore would be subject to the proposed default reporting level of 200 contracts: (1) S&P 400 Midcap Stock Index—currently 100 contracts; (2) Dow Jones Industrial Average Index—currently 100 contracts; (3) New York Stock Exchange Composite Index—currently 50 contracts; (4) Amex Major Market Index, Maxi—currently 100 contracts; (5) NASDAQ 100 Stock Index—currently 100 contracts; (6) Russell 2000 Stock Index—currently 100 contracts; (7) Value Line Average Index—currently 50 contracts; and (8) NIKKEI Stock Index—currently 100 contracts. The S&P 500 Stock Price Index and the Municipal Bond Index would remain at 1000 and 300 contracts, respectively.
Concurrently, the Commission is proposing to establish enumerated reporting levels for three German federal government debt instruments. These proposed reporting levels are as follows: (1) 10-Year German Federal Government Debt—1,000 contracts; (2) 5-Year German Federal Government Debt—800 contracts; (3) 2-Year German Federal Government Debt—500 contracts.
The Commission is also proposing a reporting level for a category of contracts that a new exchange, HedgeStreet, Inc. (HedgeStreet), intends to offer. HedgeStreet has represented that it intends to offer European-style binary options that are based on economic indexes
The referenced HedgeStreet and German federal government debt contracts are likely to be traded prior to the adoption of final reporting levels. In the absence of the adoption of final reporting levels, the Commission's default reporting level of 25 contracts would apply. To relieve market participants from compliance with the default reporting level, the Commission hereby is granting no-action relief to futures commission merchants, members of contract markets and foreign brokers that comply with the large trader reporting requirements based upon proposed reporting levels for the referenced HedgeStreet and German federal government debt contracts.
Accordingly, the Commission will not bring any enforcement action against any such futures commission merchant, member of a contract market or foreign broker. Such persons, however, must bring their conduct into compliance with final reporting levels to the extent that final reporting levels differ from those proposed herein.
The proposed amendments to adjust reporting levels would decrease the number of daily position reports, such as Series '01 Reports and Forms 102, that reporting firms are currently required to file. The number of Forms 40 filed by large traders would also decrease. However, the percent of total market open interest reported through the large trader system would remain at the level deemed sufficient for rigorous market surveillance based upon the Commission's administrative experience.
Not all reporting firms may elect to report under the proposed higher, and therefore potentially less burdensome, reporting levels. This is due to the fact that exchanges also maintain large trader reporting systems that are similar in most respects to the Commission's system. The exchanges set their own reporting levels, which for particular contracts may vary from Commission set levels. When exchange reporting levels are set lower than those set by the Commission, firms may report to the Commission at the lower exchange set level, thereby saving any cost associated with reprogramming their reporting systems to reflect the proposed increases. The Commission, however, only requires information on Forms 40 and 102 for positions that exceed its levels.
On December 21, 2000, the President signed into law the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA), extensively revising the CEA.
The Commission's rules do not address how contract markets should report these types of off-centralized-market transactions to the Commission and to the public, or how reporting firms should report them to the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission is proposing to amend its rules to address these issues. Parts 16 and 17 of the Commission's regulations currently require contract markets and reporting firms to separately account for the volume that is attributable to EFPs. The Commission is proposing to require these entities to report other trades involving the exchange of futures for a commodity or transaction other than a futures product in the same manner as they currently report EFP transactions.
Thus, as proposed, contract markets and reporting firms would group together all EFPs, EFSs, EFRs, EFOs or other exchanges of futures for a commodity or transaction other than a futures product permitted by exchange rules, and report the sum under the same category. This is appropriate because all of these trades are similar in that they permit the exchange of a futures position for an off-exchange position. Block trades, however, would not be included in this total because they do not involve the exchange of a futures position for a commodity or transaction other than a futures product. Volume attributable to block trades would be reported with other volume. Although it may be desirable to have block trade volume separately identified and reported, the Commission does not currently believe that the effort required to update its information systems or the effort required by contract markets and reporting firms to update their systems would justify the benefit.
The Commission's rules currently have requirements for hard copy submission of data and dial-up transmission of data. The rules are being changed to reflect the existing industry practice of using Internet data transmissions in place of dial-up transmissions and the use of exchange websites as a store of daily data in place of hard copy reports. Also, the Commission is proposing to amend its rules to foster innovative means of filing Forms 102 by reporting firms and to eliminate Form 103 for the submission of special call data by large traders.
Part 16 of the Commission's regulations requires reports from contract markets. The Commission is now proposing to eliminate the requirements for daily hard copy clearing member reports to the Commission and daily hard copy submissions of trading volume, exchange of futures, open contracts, delivery notices, option deltas, prices, and critical dates to the Commission or its staff. These hard copy reports would only be required upon request of the Commission or its staff. Also, the Commission is proposing to replace the requirement of providing printed forms of trading volume, exchange of futures, open contracts, delivery notices, and option deltas to the news media and members of the public with a general requirement that such information be made readily available to such persons. The Commission is also proposing to replace explicit requirements for a dial-up form of data transmission with more general requirements for data transmission. Finally, in light of advances in technology, the Commission is proposing to require the submission of clearing member reports and certain data regarding trading volume, open interest, prices and critical dates by 12 p.m. on the business day following the day to which the information pertains. Currently, such information is required to be submitted by 3 p.m. on that day. The Commission believes that the information is currently being submitted within the proposed noon deadline.
In part 17, which governs reports by reporting firms, the Commission is proposing to replace specific requirements pertaining to use of dial-up transmissions, ’01 forms and
In part 18, which governs reports by traders, the Commission is proposing to eliminate the use of a Form 103 for data requested by the Commission via special calls. The form of the data would now be per instructions contained in the call. This matches current practice.
In part 21, which governs special calls, the requirement for machine-readable information adhering to a specific record layout as contained in the rules would be eliminated. The requirement for the information to be prepared in accordance with instructions in the call would remain. This matches current practice.
The Commission has identified a number of other provisions of the large trader rules that either do not reflect current practice or otherwise should be corrected or updated. First, the Commission is proposing to amend Rule 15.00(b)(1)(ii) to clarify that options on physicals are included in the definition of reportable position.
The Commission is also proposing to amend Rules 16.00(b)(2) and 16.01(d)(2) to provide that the time by which the reports required by those rules must be filed is governed by a particular time zone, unless otherwise specified by the Commission or its designee. The Commission is also proposing certain technical amendments to Rule 17.00(g). Specifically, it is proposing to remove the references to particular exchanges in subsection (2)(v) and to make certain editorial changes in subsections (2)(vi) and (2)(xi). The Commission is also proposing to change the requirement in Rule 17.01 regarding identification of special accounts to contract markets on Form 102.
Section 15(a) of the Act requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its action before issuing a new regulation under the Act. By its terms, section 15(a) does not require the Commission to quantify the costs and benefits of a new regulation or to determine whether the benefits of the proposed regulation outweigh its costs. Rather, section 15(a) requires the Commission to “consider the cost and benefits” of the subject rule.
Section 15(a) further specifies that the costs and benefits of the proposed rule shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: (1) Protection of market participants and the public; (2) efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; (3) price discovery; (4) sound risk management practices; and (5) other public interest considerations. The Commission may, in its discretion, give greater weight to any one of the five enumerated areas of concern and may, in its discretion, determine that, notwithstanding its costs, a particular rule is necessary or appropriate to protect the public interest or to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of the Act.
The proposed rules impose limited costs in terms of reporting requirements, particularly since most entities that trade on U.S. futures markets already file large trader reports with the Commission. To reduce the cost of reporting for contract markets and reporting firms, the Commission is deleting the requirement of certain routine hard copy reports, updating its submission requirements to reflect current industry practice and fostering innovative means of filing Forms 102. Moreover, to further reduce the cost of reporting, the Commission periodically reviews all reporting levels for all commodities.
After considering these factors, the Commission has determined to propose the revisions to parts 15 through 19, and part 21, as set forth below.
The Commission specifically invites public comment on its application of the criteria contained in section 15(a) of the Act for consideration. Commenters are also invited to submit any quantifiable data that they may have concerning the costs and benefits of the proposed rule with their comment letters.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
When publicizing proposed rules, the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13 (May 13, 1995)) imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies (including the Commission) in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of information as defined by the PRA. In compliance with the PRA, the Commission through these proposed rules solicits comments to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The Commission has submitted these proposed rules and their associated information collection requirements to the Office of Management and Budget. The burdens associated with this entire collection (3038-0009), including these proposed rules, is as follows:
Persons wishing to comment on the information which would be required by these proposed rules should contact the Desk Officer, CFTC, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10202, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, 202-395-7340. Copies of the information collection submission to OMB are available from the CFTC Clearance Officer, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, 202-418-5160.
Copies of the OMB-approved information collection package associated with the rulemaking may be obtained from the Desk Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10202, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, 202-395-7340.
Brokers, Commodity futures, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Commodity futures, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Brokers, Commodity futures, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Commodity futures, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Commodity futures, Cotton, Grains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Brokers, Commodity futures, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, and pursuant to the authority contained in the Act, and, in particular, sections 4g, 4i, 5 and 8a of the Act, the Commission hereby proposes to amend chapter I of title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2, 5, 6, 6a, 6c, 6f, 6g, 6i, 6k, 6m, 6n, 7, 7a, 9, 12a, 19 and 21, as amended by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, Appendix E of Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000); 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552(b).
2. In § 15.00, revise paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) Long or short put or call options that exercise into the same future of any commodity, or for options on physicals that have identical expirations and exercise into the same physical, on any one contract market.
3. Revise § 15.02 to read as follows:
Forms on which to report may be obtained from any office of the Commission or via the Internet (
4. Revise § 15.03 to read as follows:
(a)
(b) The quantities for the purpose of reports filed under parts 17 and 18 of this chapter are as follows:
5. The authority citation for part 16 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 6a, 6c, 6g, 6i, 7 and 12a, unless otherwise noted.
6. In § 16.00, revise paragraphs (a)(4) and (b) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) The quantity of purchases of futures in connection with a commodity or transaction other than a futures product and the quantity of sales of futures in connection with a commodity or transaction other than a futures product which are included in the total quantity of contracts bought and sold during the day covered by the report, and the names of the clearing members who made the purchases or sales;
(b)
(1) Using a format, coding structure, and electronic data transmission procedures approved in writing by the Commission or its designee;
(2) When such data is first available but not later than 12 p.m. on the business day following the day to which the information pertains. Unless otherwise specified by the Commission or its designee, the stated time is eastern time for information concerning markets located in that time zone, and central time for information concerning all other markets.
7. In § 16.01, delete the phrase “, in printed form at the office of the contract market,” from paragraph (b)(3), and revise paragraph (a)(2), the concluding text of paragraph (a), and paragraph (d) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) The total quantity of futures for a commodity or transaction other than a futures product which are included in the total volume of trading;
(5) * * *
This information shall be made readily available to the news media and the general public without charge no later than the business day following the day for which publication is made.
(b) * * *
(d)
(1) Using a format, coding structure and electronic data transmission procedures approved in writing by the Commission or its designee;
(2) When each such form of the data is first available but not later than 7 a.m. on the business day following the day to which the information pertains for the delta factor and settlement price and not later than 12 p.m. for the remainder of the information. Unless otherwise specified by the Commission or its designee, the stated time is eastern time for information concerning markets
8. Revise § 16.06 to read as follows:
Unless otherwise approved by the Commission or its designee, contract markets shall file corrections to errors or omissions in data previously filed with the Commission pursuant to §§ 16.00 and 16.01 in the format and using the coding structure and electronic data submission procedures approved in writing by the Commission or its designee.
9. In § 16.07, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
(a) Pursuant to §§ 16.00(b) and 16.01(d), the authority to determine whether contract markets must submit data in hard copy, and the time that such data may be submitted where the Director determines that a contract market is unable to meet the requirements set forth in the regulations;
(b) Pursuant to §§ 16.00(b)(1), 16.00(d)(1), and 16.06, the authority to approve the format, coding structure and electronic data transmission procedures used by contract markets.
10. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 6a, 6c, 6d, 6f, 6g, 6i, 7 and 12a, unless otherwise noted.
11. In § 17.00, revise paragraph (a), add paragraph (a)(1), and revise paragraphs (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(v), (g)(2)(vi), (g)(2)(xi), and (h) to read as follows:
(a)
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(i)
(v)
(vi)
(xi)
(h)
12. In § 17.01, revise the introductory text and paragraph (f) to read as follows:
When a special account is reported for the first time, the FCM, clearing member, or foreign broker shall identify the account to the Commission on form 102, in the form and manner specified in § 17.02, showing the information in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section.
(f)
13. Revise § 17.02 to read as follows:
Unless otherwise instructed by the Commission or its designee, the reports required to be filed by FCMs, clearing members and foreign brokers under §§ 17.00 and 17.01 shall be filed as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(a)
(b)
(1) On call by the Commission or its designee, identify the type of special account specified by items 1(a), 1(b), or 1(c) of form 102, and the name and location of the person to be identified in item 1(d) on the form 102, and submit such information by facsimile or telephone, in accordance with instructions by the Commission or its
(2) Submit a completed form 102 within three business days of the first day that the special account in question is reported to the Commission in accordance with instructions by the Commission or its designee.
14. In § 17.03, revise paragraphs (a) and (b), redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (d) and add a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
(a) Pursuant to § 17.00(a) and (h), the authority to determine whether futures commission merchants, clearing members and foreign brokers can report the information required under Rule 17.00(a) and Rule 17.00(h) on series '01 forms or using some other format upon a determination that such person is unable to report the information using the format, coding structure or electronic data transmission procedures otherwise required.
(b) Pursuant to § 17.02, the authority to instruct and/or approve the time at which the information required under Rules 17.00 and 17.01 must be submitted by futures commission merchants, clearing members and foreign brokers provided that such persons are unable to meet the requirements set forth in § 17.01.
(c) Pursuant to § 17.01(f), the authority to determine whether to permit an authorized representative of a firm filing the form 102 to use a means of authenticating the report other than by signing the form 102 and, if so, to determine the alternative means of authentication that shall be used.
15. In § 17.04, revise the second sentence of paragraph (b) and paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(2) to read as follows:
(b) * * * The futures commission merchant, clearing members or foreign broker shall, if both open long and short positions in the same future or option are carried for the same trader, compute open long or open short positions as instructed in this paragraph.
(1) * * *
(i) The positions represent transactions on a contract market which requires long and short positions in the same future or option held in accounts for the same trader to be recorded and reported on a gross basis; or
(2) Include only the net long or net short positions of the trader if the positions represent transactions on a contract market which does not require long and short positions in the same future or option held in accounts for the same trader to be recorded and reported on a gross basis.
16. The authority citation for part 18 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2, 4, 6a, 6c, 6f, 6g, 6i, 6k, 6m, 6n, 12a and 19; 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552(b), unless otherwise noted.
17. Revise § 18.00 to read as follows:
Every trader who owns, holds or controls, or has held, owned or controlled, a reportable futures or options position in a commodity shall within one business day after a special call upon such trader by the Commission or its designee file reports to the Commission concerning transactions and positions in such futures or options. Reports shall be filed for a period of time that the trader held or controlled a reportable position and shall be prepared and submitted as instructed in the call. The report shall show for each day covered by the report the following information, as specified in the call, separately for each future or option and for each contract market:
(a) Open contracts;
(b) Purchases and sales;
(c) Delivery notices issued and stopped;
(d) Exchanges of futures for a commodity or transaction other than a futures product bought and sold; and
(e) Options exercised.
18. Remove and reserve § 18.02.
19. Remove and reserve § 18.06.
20. The authority citation for part 19 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 6(g)(a), 6(i) and 12a(5), unless otherwise noted.
21. In § 19.00, revise paragraph (a)(1) and the first sentence of paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) All persons holding or controlling futures and option positions that are reportable pursuant to § 15.00(b)(2) of this chapter and any part of which constitute bona fide hedging positions as defined in § 1.3(z) of this chapter;
(3) All persons holding or controlling positions for future delivery that are reportable pursuant to § 15.00(b)(1) of this chapter who have received a special call for series '04 reports from the Commission or its designee. * * *
22. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 2a, 4, 6a, 6c, 6f, 6g, 6i, 6k, 6m, 6n, 7, 7a, 12a, 19 and 21; 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552(b), unless otherwise noted.
23. Remove § 21.02a.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), Interior.
Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment.
We are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the West Virginia regulatory program (the West Virginia program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). West Virginia proposes revisions to the Code of State Regulations (CSR) as authorized by Committee Substitute for House Bill 4193. The State is revising its program to be consistent with certain corresponding Federal requirements, and to include other amendments at its own initiative. The amendments include, among other things, new
We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4 p.m. (local time), on June 11, 2004. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the amendment on June 7, 2004. We will accept requests to speak at a hearing until 4 p.m. (local time), on May 27, 2004.
You should mail, e-mail, or hand-deliver written comments and requests to speak at the hearing to Mr. Roger W. Calhoun, Director, Charleston Field Office at the address listed below.
You may review copies of the West Virginia program, this amendment, a listing of any scheduled public hearings, and all written comments received in response to this document at the addresses listed below during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. You may receive one free copy of the amendment by contacting OSM's Charleston Field Office.
Mr. Roger W. Calhoun, Director, Charleston Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1027 Virginia Street, East, Charleston, West Virginia 25301, Telephone: (304) 347-7158. E-mail:
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, 10 McJunkin Road, Nitro, West Virginia 25143, Telephone: (304) 759-0510.
In addition, you may review a copy of the amendment during regular business hours at the following locations: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Morgantown Area Office, 75 High Street, Room 229, P.O. Box 886, Morgantown, West Virginia 26507, Telephone: (304) 291-4004. (By Appointment Only); Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Beckley Area Office, 323 Harper Park Drive, Suite 3, Beckley, West Virginia 25801, Telephone: (304) 255-5265.
Mr. Roger W. Calhoun, Director, Charleston Field Office, Telephone: (304) 347-7158. Internet:
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, “* * * a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of the Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to the Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the West Virginia program on January 21, 1981. You can find background information on the West Virginia program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the West Virginia program in the January 21, 1981,
By letter dated March 25, 2004 (Administrative Record Number WV-1389), the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) submitted an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
In its letter, the WVDEP stated that the rules at CSR 38-2 were amended to be consistent with the counterpart Federal regulations. In addition, the amendment adds new provisions concerning “Forestland” and “Wildlife” to ensure reclamation techniques and husbandry that are conducive to productive forestlands and wildlife habitats are followed. The WVDEP also included in its submittal, a memorandum from the West Virginia State Forester in which the State Forester endorsed the proposed rules and also provided comments on them.
The WVDEP also submitted Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 616, which was adopted by the Legislature on March 21, 2004. The Bill increased the membership of the Environmental Protection Advisory Council and established a new Quality Assurance Compliance Advisory Committee. Because this Bill was vetoed by the Governor on April 6, 2004, it is not being considered in this rulemaking.
The amendment submitted by WVDEP includes amendments to CSR 38-2-24 concerning the exemption for coal extraction incidental to the removal of other minerals. However, none of these provisions at CSR 38-2-24, which the State is proposing to amend, have been previously submitted to OSM for approval. Therefore, we are including CSR 38-2-24 (Administrative Record Number WV-1390) in its entirety, and we are requesting public comment on all of Section 24 (Item 10, below).
The full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under
Specifically, West Virginia proposes the following amendments.
This provision is amended by changing a term related to the scale of the topographic map that must be submitted with the subsidence control plan. In the first sentence, the word “less” is deleted and replaced by the word “more.” In the last sentence, the word “less” is deleted and replaced by the word “larger.”
This subsection is new and provides as follows.
7.6.a. The Secretary may authorize forest land as a postmining land use only if the following conditions have been met: Provided, however; this subsection only applies to AOC mining operations that propose to utilize auger, area, mountain top and contour methods of mining. Proposed underground mining, coal preparation facilities, coal refuse disposal, haulroads and their related incidental facilities are not subject to the provisions of this subsection but must comply with all other applicable sections of this rule.
7.6.b. Planting Plan
7.6.b.1. A. West Virginia registered professional forester shall develop a planting plan for the permitted area that meets the requirements of the West Virginia Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act. This plan shall be made a part of the mining permit application. The plans shall be in sufficient detail to demonstrate that the requirements of forestland use can be met. The minimum contents of the plan shall be as follows:
7.6.b.1.A.1. A premining native soils map and brief description of each soil mapping unit to include at a minimum: Areal extent expressed in acres, total depth and volume to bedrock, soil horizons, including the O, A, E, B, and C horizon depths, soil texture, structure, color, reaction, bedrock type, and
7.6.b.1.A.2. A surface preparation plan that includes a description of the methods for replacing and grading the soil and other soil substitutes and their preparation for seeding and tree planting.
7.6.b.1.A.3. Liming and fertilizer plans.
7.6.b.1.A.4. Mulching type, rates and procedures.
7.6.b.1.A.5. Species seeding rates and procedures for application of perennial and annual herbaceous, shrub and vine plant materials for ground cover.
7.6.b.1.A.6. A site specific tree planting prescription to establish forestland to include species, stems per acre and planting mixes.
7.6.b.1.B. Review of the Planting plan.
7.[6.]b.1.B.1. Before approving a forestland postmining land use, the Secretary shall assure that the planting plan is reviewed and approved by a forester employed [by] the Department of Environmental Protection. Before approving the planting plan, the Secretary shall assure that the reviewing forester has made site-specific written findings adequately addressing each of the elements of the plans. The reviewing forester shall make these findings within 45 days of receipt of the plans.
7.6.b.1.B.2. If after reviewing the planting plan, the reviewing forester finds that the plan complies with the requirements of this section, they shall prepare written findings stating the basis of approval. A copy of the findings shall be sent to Secretary and shall be made part of the Facts and Findings section of the permit application file.
The Secretary shall ensure that the plans comply with the requirements of this rule and other provisions of the approved State surface mining program.
7.6.b.1.B.3. If the reviewing forester finds the plans to be insufficient, the forester shall either:
7.6.b.1.B.3.(a). Contact the preparing forester and the permittee and provide the permittee with an opportunity to make the changes necessary to bring the planting plan into compliance; or,
7.6.b.1.B.3.(b). Notify the Secretary that the planting plan does not meet the requirements of this rule. The Secretary may not approve the surface mining permit until finding that the planting plans satisfy all of the requirements of this rule.
7.6.c. Soil placement, Substitute material and Grading
7.6.c.1. Except for valley fill faces, soil or soil substitutes shall be redistributed in a uniform thickness of at least four feet across the mine area.
7.6.c.2. The use of topsoil substitutes may be approved by the Secretary providing the applicant demonstrates: the volume of topsoil on the permit area is insufficient to meet the depth requirements of 7.6.c.1, the substitute material consists of at least 75% sandstone, has a composite paste pH between 5.0 and 7.5, has a soluble salt level of less than 1.0 mmhos/cm. and is in accordance with 14.3.c. The Secretary may allow substitute materials with less than 75% sandstone provided the applicant demonstrates the overburden in the mine area does not contain an adequate volume of sandstone to meet the depth requirements of 7.6.c.1, or the quality of sandstone in the overburden does not meet the requirements of this rule. This information shall be made a part of the permit application.
7.6.c.3. Soil shall be placed in a loose and non-compacted manner while achieving a static safety factor of 1.3 or greater. Grading and tracking shall be minimized to reduce compaction. Final grading and tracking shall be prohibited on all areas that are equal to or less than a 30 percent slope. Organic debris such as forest litter, tree tops, roots, and root balls may be left on and in the soil.
7.6.c.4. The permittee may regrade and reseed only those rills and gullies that are unstable and/or disrupt the approved postmining land use or the establishment of vegetative cover or cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards for the receiving stream.
7.6.d. Liming and Fertilizing
7.6.d.1. Lime shall be required where the average soil pH is less than 5.0. Lime rates will be used to achieve a uniform soil pH of 5.5. Soil pH may vary from 5.0 to a maximum of 7.5. An alternate maximum or minimum soil pH may be approved based on the optimum pH for the revegetation species.
7.6.d.2. The Secretary shall require the permittee to fertilize based upon the needs of trees and establishment of ground cover to control surface soil erosion. Between 200 and 300 lbs./acre of 10-20-10 fertilizer shall be applied with the ground cover seeding. Other fertilizer materials and rates may be used only if the Secretary finds that the substitutions are appropriate based on soil testing performed by State certified laboratories.
7.6.e. Revegetation
7.6.e.1. Temporary erosion control vegetative cover shall be established as contemporaneously as practical with backfilling and grading until a permanent tree cover can be established. This cover shall consist of a combination of native and domesticated non-competitive and non-invasive cool and warm species grasses and other herbaceous vine or shrub species including legume species and shrubs. All species shall be slow growing and compatible with tree establishment and growth. The ground vegetation shall be capable of stabilizing the soil from excessive erosion, but the species should be slow growing and non-invasive to allow the establishment and growth of native herbaceous plants and trees. Seeding rates and composition must be in the planting plan. The following ground cover mix and seeding rates (lb./acre) are strongly recommended: winter wheat or oats (10 lbs./acre), fall seeding, foxtail millet (5 lbs./acre), summer seeding, weeping lovegrass (3 lbs./acre or redtop at 5 lbs./acre), kobe lespedeza (5 lbs./acre), birdsfoot trefoil (10lbs.,/acre), perennial rye grass (10 lbs.,/acre) and white clover (3 lbs./acres). Kentucky 31 fescue, serecia lespedeza, all vetches, clovers (except ladino and white clover) and other aggressive or invasive species shall not be used. Alternate seeding rates and composition will be considered on a case by case basis by the Secretary and may be approved if site specific conditions necessitate a deviation from the above. All mixes shall be compatible with the plant and animal species of the region and forestland use.
7.6.e.2. The selection of trees and shrubs species shall be based [on] each species' site requirements (soil type, degree of compaction, ground cover, competition, topographic position and aspect) and in accordance with the approved planting plan prepared by a registered professional forester. The stocking density of woody plants shall be at least 500 plants per acre.
7.6.e.2.A. The stocking density for trees shall be at least 350 plants per acre. There shall be a minimum of five species of trees, to include at least three higher value hardwood species (white oak, northern red oak, black oak, chestnut oak, white ash, sugar maple, black cherry and yellow poplar) and at least two lower value hardwoods or softwoods species (all hickories, red maple, basswood, cucumber magnolia, sycamore, white pine, Virginia pine and pitch × loblolly hybrid pine). There shall be at least 210 high value hardwoods plants per acre and 140 lower value hardwood or softwood plants per acre (70 plants per acre for each species selected).
7.6.e.2.B. The stocking density of shrubs and other woody plants shall not exceed 150 plants per acre. There shall be a minimum of three species of shrubs or other woody plants (black locust, bristly locust, dogwood, Eastern redbud, black alder, bigtooth aspen and bicolor lespedeza, (50 plants per acre for each species selected).
7.6.f. Standards for Success
7.6.f.1. The success of vegetation shall be determined on the basis of tree and shrub survival and ground cover.
7.6.f.2. Minimum success standard shall be tree survival (including volunteer tree species) and/or planted shrubs per acre equal to or greater than four hundred and fifty (450) trees per acre and a seventy percent (70%) ground cover where ground cover includes tree canopy, shrub and herbaceous cover, and organic litter during the growing season of the last year of the responsibility period; and
7.6.f.3. At the time of final bond release, at least eighty (80) percent of all trees and shrubs used to determine such success must have been in place for at least sixty (60) percent of the applicable minimum period of responsibility. Trees and shrubs counted in determining such success shall be healthy and shall have been in place for not less than two (2) growing seasons.
This subsection is new and provides as follows.
7.7.a. The Secretary may authorize wildlife as a postmining land use only if the following conditions have been met. This subsection applies to all AOC mining operations that propose a postmining land use of wildlife. The Secretary shall ensure that the plans comply with the requirements of this rule and other provisions of the approved State surface mining program.
7.7.b. Planting Plan
7.7.b.1. A wildlife biologist employed by the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources shall develop a planting plan for the permitted area that meets the requirements of the West Virginia Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act. This plan shall be made a part of the mining permit application. The plans shall be in sufficient detail to demonstrate that the requirements of wildlife use can be met. The minimum contents of the plan shall be as follows:
7.7.b.1.A.1. Surface preparation plan that includes a description of the methods for replacing and grading the soil and other soil substitutes and their preparation for seeding and planting.
7.7.b.1.A.2. Liming and fertilizer plans.
7.7.b.1.A.3. Mulching type, rates and procedures.
7.7.b.1.A.4. Species seeding rates and procedures for application of perennial and annual herbaceous, shrub and vine plant materials for ground cover.
7.7.b.1.A.5. A site specific tree/shrub planting prescription to establish wildlife to include species, stems per acre and planting mixes.
7.7.c. Soil placement, Substitute material and Grading
7.7.c.1. Except for valley fill faces, soil or soil substitutes shall be redistributed in a uniform thickness of at least four feet across the mine area.
7.7.c.2. The use of topsoil substitutes may be approved by the Secretary providing the applicant demonstrates: the volume of topsoil on the permit area is insufficient to meet the depth requirements of 7.6.c.1, the substitute material consists of at least 75% sandstone, has a composite paste pH between 5.0 and 7.5, has a soluble salt level of less than 1.0 mmhos/cm. and is in accordance with 14.3.c. The Secretary may allow substitute materials with less than 75% sandstone provided the applicant demonstrates the overburden in the mine area does not contain an adequate volume of sandstone to meet the depth requirements of 7.6.c.1, or the quality of sandstone in the overburden does not meet the requirements of this rule. Such information shall be made a part of the permit application.
7.7.c.3. Soil shall be placed in a loose and non-compacted manner while achieving a static safety factor of 1.3 or greater. Grading and tracking shall be minimized to reduce compaction. Final grading and tracking shall be prohibited on all areas that are equal to or less than a 30 percent slope. Organic debris such as forest litter, tree tops, roots, and root balls may be left on and in the soil.
7.7.c.4. The permittee may regrade and reseed only those rills and gullies that are unstable and/or disrupt the approved postmining land use or the establishment of vegetative cover or cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards for the receiving stream.
7.7.d. Liming and Fertilizing
7.7.d.1. Lime shall be required where the average soil pH is less than 5.0. Lime rates will be used to achieve a uniform soil pH of 5.5. Soil pH may vary from 5.0 to a maximum of 7.5. An alternate maximum or minimum soil pH may be approved based on the optimum pH for the revegetation species.
7.7.d.2. The Secretary shall require the permittee to fertilize based upon the needs of trees and establishment of ground cover to control surface soil erosion. A minimum of 300 lbs./acre of 10-20-10 fertilizer shall be applied with the ground cover seeding. Other fertilizer materials and rates may be used only if the Secretary finds that the substitutions are appropriate based on soil testing performed by State certified laboratories.
7.7.e. Revegetation
7.7.e.1. Temporary erosion control vegetative cover shall be established as contemporaneously as practical with backfilling and grading until a permanent tree cover can be established. This cover shall consist of a combination of native and domesticated non-competitive and non-invasive cool and warm species grasses and other herbaceous vine or shrub species including legume species and shrubs. All species shall be slow growing and compatible with tree establishment and growth. The ground vegetation shall be capable of stabilizing the soil from excessive erosion, but the species should be slow growing and non-invasive to allow the establishment and growth of native herbaceous plants and trees. Seeding rates and composition must be in the planting plan. The following ground cover mix and seeding rates (lb./acre) are strongly recommended: Winter wheat (20 lbs./acre), fall seeding, foxtail millet (10 lbs./acre), summer seeding, weeping lovegrass (3 lbs./acre or redtop at 5 lbs./acre), kobe lespedeza (5 lbs./acre), birdsfoot trefoil (15 lbs./acre), perennial rye grass (10 lbs./acre) and white clover (4 lbs./acre). Kentucky 31 fescue, serecia lespedeza, all vetches, clovers (except ladino and white clover) and other aggressive or invasive species shall not be used. Alternate seeding rates and composition will be considered on a case by case basis by the Secretary and may be approved if site specific conditions necessitate a deviation from the above. Areas designated, as openings shall contain only grasses in accordance with the approved planting plan specified under subsection 7.7.b. of this rule.
7.7.e.2. The selection of trees and shrubs species shall be based [on] each species' site requirements (soil type, degree of compaction, ground cover, competition, topographic position and aspect) and in accordance with the approved planting plan specified in under subsection 7.7.b. of this rule. The stocking density of woody plants shall be at least 500 plants per acre. Provided, that where a wildlife planting plan has been approved by a professional wildlife biologist and proposes a stocking rate of less than four hundred fifty (450) trees or shrubs per acre the standard for grasses and legumes shall meet those standards contained in subdivision 9.3.f of this rule. In all instances, there shall be a minimum of four species of tree or shrub, to include at least two hard mast producing species.
7.7.f. Standards for Success
7.7.f.1. The success of vegetation shall be determined on the basis of tree and shrub survival and ground cover.
7.7.f.2. Minimum success standard shall be tree survival (including volunteer tree species) and/or planted shrubs per acre equal to or greater than four hundred and fifty (450) trees per acre and a seventy percent (70%) ground cover where ground cover includes tree canopy, shrub and herbaceous cover, and organic litter during the growing season of the last year of the responsibility period; Provided, that where a wildlife planting plan has been approved by a professional wildlife biologist and proposes a stocking rate of less than four hundred fifty (450) trees or shrubs per acre the standard for grasses and legumes shall meet those standards contained in subdivision 9.3.f of this rule.
7.7.f.3. At the time of final bond release, at least eighty (80) percent of all trees and shrubs used to determine such success must have been in place for at least sixty (60) percent of the applicable minimum period of responsibility. Trees and shrubs counted in determining such success shall be healthy and shall have been in place for not less than two (2) growing seasons.
This provision is amended by adding a sentence in the second paragraph that provides as follows:
The first sentence of this paragraph is amended by deleting the partial citation “(c)(2),” and adding the words “and this rule” immediately following the amended citation. As amended, the sentence provides as follows:
This paragraph is amended by adding a sentence, which provides as follows:
In our December 3, 2002,
This provision is new and provides as follows.
20.1.a.6. When a permit has been revoked, in lieu of the inspection frequency established in paragraphs 20.1.a.1 and 20.1.a.2 of this subsection, the Secretary shall inspect each revoked site on a set frequency commensurate with the public health and safety and environmental consideration present at each specific site, but in no case shall the inspection frequency be set at less than one complete inspection per calendar year. In selecting an alternate inspection frequency, the Secretary shall first conduct a complete inspection of the site and provide public notice. The Secretary shall place a notice in the newspaper with the broadest circulation in the locality of the revoked mine site providing the public with a 30-day period in which to submit written comments. The public notice shall contain the permittee's name, the permit number, the precise location of the land affected, the inspection frequency proposed, the general reasons for reducing the inspection frequency, the bond status of the permit, the telephone number and address of [the] Department of Environmental Protection Office where written comments on the reduced inspection frequency may be submitted, and the closing date of the comment period. Following the inspection and public notice, the Secretary shall prepare and maintain for public review a written finding justifying the alternative inspection frequency selected. This written finding shall justify the new inspection frequency by affirmatively addressing in detail all of the following criteria:
20.1.a.6.A. Whether, and to what extent, there exists on the site impoundments, earthen structures or other conditions that pose, or may reasonably be expected to ripen into, imminent dangers to the health or safety of the public or significant environmental harms to land, air, or water resources;
20.1.a.6.B. The extent to which existing impoundments or earthen structures were constructed and certified in accordance with prudent engineering designs approved in the permit;
20.1.a.6.C. The degree to which erosion and sediment control is present and functioning;
20.1.a.6.D. The extent to which the site is located near or above urbanized areas, communities, occupied dwellings, schools and other public or commercial buildings and facilities;
20.1.a.6.E. The extent of reclamation completed prior to abandonment and the degree of stability of unreclaimed areas, taking into consideration the physical characteristics of the land mined and the extent of settlement or revegetation that has occurred naturally with them; and
20.1.a.6.F. Based on a review of the complete and partial inspection report record for the site during at least two consecutive years, the rate at which adverse environmental or public health and safety conditions have and can be expected to progressively deteriorate.
This provision is amended in the second sentence by adding the words “hauled or conveyed and” immediately following the words “mine refuse shall be.” As amended, the sentence provides that coal mine refuse shall be hauled or conveyed and placed in a controlled manner to comply with the performance standards at CSR 38-2-22.5.a.1. through 22.5.a.5.
This section is deleted in its entirety. The remaining sections are renumbered accordingly.
This revision by the State is in response to our disapproval of Section 23 as discussed in the May 5, 2000, and March 4, 2003,
This section is new and provides as follows.
24.1. Exemption determination. The term other minerals as used in this section means any commercially valuable substance mined for its mineral value, excluding coal, topsoil, waste and fill material. No later than 90 days after filing of an administratively complete request for exemption, the Secretary shall make a written determination whether, and under what conditions, the persons claiming the exemption are exempt under this section, and shall notify the person making the request and persons submitting comments on the application of the determination and the basis for the determination. The determination of exemption shall be based upon information contained in the request and any other information available to the regulatory authority at that time. If the Secretary fails to provide a determination as specified in this section, an applicant who has not begun extraction may commence pending a determination unless the Secretary issues an interim finding, together with reasons, therefore, that the applicant may not begin coal extraction. Any person adversely affected by a determination of the Secretary pursuant to this section may file an appeal only in accordance with the provisions of article one, chapter twenty-two-b of this code, within thirty days after receipt of the determination. The filing of an appeal does not suspend the effect of the determination.
24.2. Contents of request for exemption. A request for exemption shall be made part of a quarrying application and shall include at a minimum:
24.2.a. The names and business address of the requestor to include a street address or route number;
24.2.b. A list of the minerals to be extracted;
24.2.c. Estimates of annual production of coal and the other minerals over the anticipated life of the operation;
24.2.d. A reasonable estimate of the number of acres of coal that will be extracted;
24.2.e. Evidence of publication of a public notice for an application for exemption. The notice that an application for exemption has been filed with the Secretary shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the operation is located and shall be published once and provide a thirty day comment period. The public notice must contain at a minimum:
24.2.e.1. The quarrying number identifying the operation;
24.2.e.2. A clear and accurate location map of a scale and detail found in the West Virginia General Highway Map. The map size will be at a minimum four inches (4″) x four inches (4″). Longitude and latitude lines and north arrow will be indicated on the map and such lines will cross at or near the center of the quarrying operation;
24.2.e.3. The names and business address of the requestor to include a street address or route number;
24.2.e.4. A narrative description clearly describing the location of the quarrying operation;
24.2.e.5. The name and address of the Department of Environmental Protection Office where written comments on the request may be submitted;
24.2.f. Geologic cross sections, maps or plans of the quarrying operation determine the following information:
24.2.f.1. The locations (latitude and longitude) and elevations of all bore holes;
24.2.f.2. The nature and depth of the various strata or overburden including geologic formation names and/or geologic members;
24.2.f.3. The nature and thickness of any coal or other mineral to be extracted;
24.2.g. A map of appropriate scale which clearly identifies the coal extraction area versus quarrying area;
24.2.h. A general description of coal extraction and quarrying activities for the operation;
24.2.i. Estimated annual revenues to be derived from bona fide sales of coal and other minerals to be extracted;
24.2.j. If coal or the other minerals are to be used rather than sold, estimated annual fair market values at the time of projected use of the coal and other minerals to be extracted;
24.2.k. The basis for all annual production, revenue, and fair market value estimates;
24.2.l. A summary of sale commitments and agreements, if any, that the applicant has received for future delivery of other minerals to be extracted from the mining area, or a description of potential markets for the other minerals;
24.2.m. If the other minerals are to be commercially used by the applicant, a description specifying the use; and
24.2.n. Any other information pertinent to the qualification of the operation as exempt.
24.3. Requirements for exemption.
24.3.a. Activities are exempt from the requirements of the Act if all of the following are satisfied:
24.3.a.1. The production of coal extracted from the mining area determined annually as described in this paragraph does not exceed 16
24.3.a.2. Coal is extracted from a geological stratum lying above or immediately below the deepest stratum from which other minerals are extracted for purposes of bona fide sale or reasonable commercial use.
24.3.a.3. The revenue derived from the coal extracted from the mining area, determined annually does not exceed fifty (50) percent of the total revenue derived from the coal and other minerals removed for purposes of bona fide sale or reasonable commercial use. If the coal extracted or the minerals removed are used by the operator or transferred to a related entity for use instead of being sold in a bona fide sale, then the fair market value of the coal or other minerals shall be calculated at the time of use or transfer and shall be considered rather than revenue.
24.3.b. Persons seeking or that have obtained an exemption from the requirements of the Act [West Virginia Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act] shall comply with the following:
24.3.b.1. Each other mineral upon which an exemption under this section is based must be a commercially valuable mineral for which a market exists or which is quarried in bona fide anticipation that a market will exist for the mineral in the reasonably foreseeable future, not to exceed twelve months. A legally binding agreement for the future sale of other minerals is sufficient to demonstrate the above standard.
24.3.b.2. If either coal or other minerals are transferred or sold by the operator to a related entity for its use or sale, the transaction must be made for legitimate business purposes.
24.4. Conditions of exemption.
A person conducting activities covered by this part shall:
24.4.a. Maintain on site the information necessary to verify the exemption including, but not limited to, commercial use and sales information, extraction tonnages, and a copy of the exemption application and the Department's exemption approval;
24.4.b. Notify the Department of Environmental Protection upon the completion or permanent cessation of all coal extraction activities.
24.5. Stockpiling of minerals.
24.5.a. Coal extracted and stockpiled may be excluded from the calculation of annual production until the time of its sale, transfer to a related entity or use:
24.5.a.1. Up to an amount equaling a 12 month supply of the coal required for future sale, transfer or use as calculated based upon the average annual sales, transfer and use from the mining area over the two preceding years; or
24.5.a.2. For a mining area where coal has been extracted for a period of less than two years, up to an amount that would represent a 12 month supply of the coal required for future sales, transfer or use as calculated based on the average amount of coal sold, transferred or used each month.
24.5.b. The Department of Environmental Protection shall disallow all or part of an operator's tonnages of stockpiled other minerals for purposes of meeting the requirements of this part if the operator fails to maintain adequate and verifiable records of the mining area of origin, the disposition of stockpiles or if the disposition of the stockpiles indicates the lack of commercial use or market for the minerals.
The Department of Environmental Protection may only allow an operator to utilize tonnages of stockpiled other minerals for purposes of meeting the requirements of this part if:
24.5.b.1. The stockpiling is necessary to meet market conditions or is consistent with generally accepted industry practices; and
24.5.b.2. Except as provided in 24.5.b.3. of this section, the stockpiled other minerals do not exceed a 12 month supply of the mineral required for future sales as approved by the regulatory authority on the basis of the exemption application.
24.5.b.3. The Department of Environmental Protection may allow an operator to utilize tonnages of stockpiled other minerals beyond the 12 month limit established in 24.5.b.2. of this section if the operator can demonstrate to the Department of Environmental Protection's satisfaction that the additional tonnage is required to meet future business obligations of the operator, such as may be demonstrated by a legally binding agreement for future delivery of the minerals.
24.5.b.4. The Department of Environmental Protection may periodically revise the other mineral stockpile tonnage limits in accordance with the criteria established by 24.5.b.2. and 3. of this section based on additional information available to the Department of Environmental Protection.
24.6. Revocation and enforcement.
24.6.a. The Department of Environmental Protection shall conduct an annual compliance review of the operation requesting exemption.
24.6.b. If the Department of Environmental Protection has reason to believe that a specific operation was not exempt at the end of the previous reporting period, is not exempt, or will be unable to satisfy the exemption criteria at the end of the current reporting period, the Department of Environmental Protection shall notify the operator that the exemption may be revoked and the reason(s) therefore. The exemption will be revoked unless the operator demonstrates to the Department of Environmental Protection within 30 days that the operation in question should continue to be exempt.
24.6.c. If the Department of Environmental Protection finds that an operator has not demonstrated that activities conducted in the operation area qualify for the exemption, the Department of Environmental Protection shall revoke the exemption and immediately notify the operator and commenter(s). If a decision is made not to revoke an exemption, the Secretary shall immediately notify the operator and commenter(s).
24.6.d. Any adversely affected person by a determination of the Secretary pursuant to this section may file an appeal only in accordance with the provisions of WV § 22B-1-1
24.6.e. Direct enforcement.
24.6.e.1. An operator mining in accordance with the terms of an approved exemption shall not be cited for violations of WV § 22-3
24.6.e.2. Upon revocation of an exemption or denial of an exemption application, an operator shall stop conducting surface coal mining operations until a permit is obtained, and shall comply with the reclamation standards of WV [section] 22-3
24.7. Reporting requirements.
24.7.a.1. Following approval by the Department of Environmental Protection of an exemption for an operation, the person receiving the exemption shall file a quarterly production report with the Department of Environmental Protection containing the information specified in 24.7.a.3. of this section.
24.7.a.2. The report shall be filed no later than 30 days after the end of each quarter.
24.7.a.3. The information in the report shall cover:
24.7.a.3.A. Quarterly production of coal and other minerals, and
24.7.a.3.B. The cumulative production of coal and other minerals.
24.7.a.3.C. The number of tons of coal stockpiled;
24.7.a.3.D. The number of tons of other minerals stockpiled by the operator.
24.7.b.1. Following approval by the Department of Environmental Protection of an exemption for an operation, the person receiving the exemption shall file an annual production report with the Department of Environmental Protection containing the information specified in 24.7.b.3.of this section.
24.7.b.2. The report shall be filed no later than 30 days after the end of each calendar year.
24.7.b.3. The information in the report shall include:
24.7.b.3.a. The number of tons of extracted coal sold in bona fide sales and the total revenue derived from these sales;
24.7.b.3.b. The number of tons of coal extracted and used or transferred by the operator or related entity and the estimated total fair market value of this coal;
24.7.b.3.c. The number of tons of coal stockpiled;
24.7.b.3.d. The number of tons of other commercially valuable minerals extracted and sold in bona fide sales and total revenue derived from these sales;
24.7.b.3.e. The number of tons of other commercially valuable minerals extracted and used or transferred by the operator or related entity and the estimated total fair market value of these minerals;
24.7.b.3 .f. The number of tons of other commercially valuable minerals removed and stockpiled by the operator;
24.7.b.3.g. The annual production of coal and other minerals and the annual revenue derived from coal and other minerals; and
24.7.b.3.h. The annual production of coal and other minerals and the annual revenue derived from coal and other minerals during the preceding year.
24.8. Public Availability of Information.
24.8.1. Except as provided in 24.8.2, all information submitted to the Secretary shall be made immediately available for public inspection and copying at the office with jurisdiction over coal mining in the locality of the subject exempt operation, until at least three (3) years after expiration of the period during which the subject mining area is active.
24.8.2 The Secretary may keep information submitted to the Secretary confidential if the person submitting it requests in writing, at the time of submission, that it be kept confidential and if the information concerns trade secrets or is privileged commercial or financial information of the persons intending to conduct operations under this rule.
24.8.3. Information requested to be held as confidential under subsection 24.8.2 shall not be made publicly available until after notice and opportunity to be heard is afforded persons both seeking and opposing disclosure of the information.
24.9. Right of Inspection and Entry.
24.9.1 Authorized representatives of the Secretary and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior shall have the right to conduct inspections of operations claiming exemption.
24.9.2. Each authorized representative of the Secretary and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior conducting an inspection under this rule shall:
24.9.2.a. Have a right of entry to, upon, and through any mining and reclamation operations without advance notice or a search warrant, upon presentation of appropriate credentials;
24.9.2.b. At reasonable times and without delay, have access to and copy any records relevant to the exemption; and
24.9.2.c. Have a right to gather physical and photographic evidence to document conditions, practices, or violations at a site.
24.9.3. No search warrant shall be required with respect to any activity under 24.9.1 and 24.9.2., except that a search warrant may be required for entry into a building.
Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the West Virginia program.
Send your written or electronic comments to OSM at the address given above. Your written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of your recommendations. We may not consider or respond to your comments when developing the final rule if they are received after the close of the comment period (
Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII, Word file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include Attn: SATS NO. WV-102-FOR@ and your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation that we have received your Internet message, contact the Charleston Field office at (304) 347-7158.
We will make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during normal business hours. We will not consider anonymous comments. If individual respondents request confidentiality, we will honor their request to the extent allowable by law. Individual respondents who wish to withhold their name or address from public review, except for the city or
If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under
To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.
If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under
We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the Administrative Record.
This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulation.
This rule is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.
This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. The basis for this determination is that our decision is on a State regulatory program and does not involve a Federal regulation involving Indian lands.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507
The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) Does not
This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the analysis performed under various laws and executive orders for the counterpart Federal regulations.
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to reinstate corn tolerances for the herbicide thifensulfuron-methyl. These corn tolerances were previously established but inadvertently removed shortly thereafter. Registrations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for use of thifensulfuron-methyl on corn currently exist and have existed for more than 9 years.
Comments must be received on or before July 12, 2004.
Submit your comments, identified by docket ID number OPP-2004-0085, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Joseph Nevola, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8037; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS 111)
• Animal production (NAICS 112)
• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532).
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II.A. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
In addition to using EDOCKET
1.
2.
i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
On May 18, 1994 (59 FR 25821) (FRL-4778-9), EPA published a Notice of Final Rulemaking in the
Not long after, on June 22, 1994 (59 FR 32085) (FRL-4868-8), EPA published a Notice of Final Rulemaking in the
Currently, there are active products registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) which list corn as a use site for thifensulfuron-methyl application. These registrations have existed since 1994 with associated tolerances established in May 1994. EPA is proposing to correct the inadvertent error.
Also, in accordance with current Agency practice, the commodity terminologies for the tolerances should be revised from corn forage, field to corn, field, forage; corn grain, field to corn, field, grain; and corn fodder, field to corn, field, stover.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to reinstate the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.439 for residues of thifensulfuron-methyl in or on corn, field, forage at 0.1 ppm; corn, field, stover at 0.1 ppm; and corn, field, grain at 0.05 ppm. The Agency will reassess these tolerances according to FQPA standards in the near future.
On February 13, 2004 (69 FR 7161) (FRL-7338-6), EPA published a direct final rule which would have reinstated the three corn tolerances in 40 CFR 180.439. However, during the public comment period, EPA received in docket OPP-2003-0363 one adverse comment from a private individual. In the February 13th direct final rule, EPA stated that if a relevant adverse comment was received during the comment period, that EPA would publish a timely withdrawal in the
A tolerance represents the maximum level for residues of pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 301
EPA is proposing that the three corn tolerances for thifensulfuron-methyl be reinstated on the day of publication of a final rule in the
In this proposed rule EPA is proposing to reinstate specific tolerances established under section 408 of the FFDCA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this type of action from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.439 is revised to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
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 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California 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 11, 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-2004-0066-2004-0053. 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) 343-9422. You can also call EPA's toll-free WIPP Information Line, 1-800-331-WIPP or visit our Web site at
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will
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.
1.
i.
ii.
2.
3.
4.
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 Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) until the EPA determines that the site has established and executed a quality assurance program, in accordance with §§ 194.22(a)(2)(i), 194.24(c)(3), and 194.24(c)(5) for waste characterization activities and assumptions (Condition 2 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 194); and (2) (with the exception of specific, limited waste streams and equipment at LANL) prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP (from LANL or any other site) until EPA has approved the procedures developed to comply with the waste characterization requirements of § 194.22(c)(4) (Condition 3 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 194). The EPA's approval process for waste generator sites is described in § 194.8. As part of EPA's decisionmaking process, the DOE is required to submit to EPA appropriate documentation of quality assurance and waste characterization programs at each DOE waste generator site seeking approval for shipment of TRU radioactive waste to WIPP. In accordance with § 194.8, EPA will place such documentation in the official Air Docket in Washington, DC, and informational dockets in the State of New Mexico for public review and comment.
EPA will perform an inspection of the TRU waste characterization activities
EPA will inspect the following technical elements for characterizing newly-generated and retrievably-stored TRV solid and debris waste: Data validation and verification, acceptable knowledge (AK), nondestructive assay (HENC/Gamma), 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 quality assurance and waste characterization processes and programs used at LLNL 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 LLNL (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.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document sets forth thirteen reservation proposals requesting to amend the FM Table of Allotments by reserving certain vacant FM allotments for noncommercial educational use in Amherst, NY, Berthold, ND, Cordell, OK, Dallas, OR, Dillsboro, NC, Hubbardston, MI, Huntsville, MO, Laurie, MO, Madison, MO, Madras, OR, Weatherford, OK, West Tisbury, MA, Wynnewood, OK. The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed Starboard Media Foundation, Inc. proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 282A at West Tisbury, MA, vacant Channel 237A at Dillsboro, NC, and Channel 264C at Berthold, ND for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *282A at West Tisbury are 41-22-52 North Latitude and 70-40-30 West Longitude. The reference coordinates for Channel *237A at Dillsboro are 35-15-56 North Latitude and 89-9-16 West Longitude. The reference coordinates for Channel *264C at Berthold are 48-18-54 North Latitude and 101-44-22 West Longitude. The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed by Living Proof, Inc. and Lansing Community College proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 279A at Hubbardston, MI. The reference coordinates for Channel *279A at Hubbardston are 43-5-53 North Latitude and 84-51-54 West Longitude.
Comments must be filed on or before June 7, 2004, and reply comments on or before June 22, 2004.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, his counsel, or consultant, as follows: Mark Follett, Starboard Media Foundation, Inc., 2300 Riverside Drive, Green Bay, WI 54301; Harry C. Martin, Esq. and Lee G. Petro, Esq., c/o Living Proof, Inc., Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth PLC, 1300 North 17th Street, 11th Floor, Arlington, VA 22209; John Crigler, c/o Lansing Community College, Garvey Schubert Barer, 1000 Potomac Street, NW., Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20007; Patrick J. Vaughn, General Counsel, American Family Association, Post Office Drawer 2440, Tupelo, MS 38803; Arthur H. Harding, Esq., Christopher G. Wood, Esq., Mark B. Denbo, Esq., c/o Youngshine Media, Inc., Fleischman and Walsh, L.L.P., 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20006; Russell C. Powell, Esq., c/o Great Plains Christian Radio, Inc., Taylor & Powell, LLP, 908 King Street, Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22314; Todd D. Gray, Esq., Margaret L. Miller, Esq. and Barry S. Persh, Esq., c/o University of Oklahoma, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC, 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036; Jeffrey D. Southmayd, Esq., c/o Sister Sherry Lynn Foundation, Inc., Southmayd & Miller, 1220 19th Street, NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036; Betty McArdle, Vice-President/Treasurer, Northwest Community Radio Project, 3740 SW Comus Street, Portland, OR 97219; Donald E. Martin, Esq., c/o Dallas, Oregon Seventh-Day Adventist Church, Donald E. Martin, P.C., P.O. Box 8433, Falls Church, VA 22041, William J. Byrnes, Esq., c/o Radio Bilingue, Inc., 7921 Old Falls Road, McLean, VA 22102; David A. O'Connor, Esq., c/o Lifetime Ministries, Inc., Holland & Knight LLP, 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20006.
Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket Nos. 04-113, 04-114, 04-115, 04-116, 04-117, 04-118, 04-119, 04-120, 04-121, 04-122, 04-123, 04-124, 04-125 adopted April 12, 2004 and released April 14, 2004. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC's Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail
The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed by American Family Association proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 278C2 at Huntsville, MO, vacant Channel 265C3 at Laurie, MO, and vacant Channel 247C3 at Madison, MO for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *278C2 at Huntsville are 39-29-45 North Latitude and 92-25-5 West Longitude. The reference coordinates for Channel *265C3 at Laurie are 38-8-30 North Latitude and 92-50-37 West Longitude. The reference coordinates for Channel *247C3 at Madison are 39-24-37 North Latitude and 92-10-58 West Longitude.
The Audio Division requests comment on a petition filed by Youngshine Media, Inc. proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 221A at Amherst, NY for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *221A at Amherst are 42-58-42 North Latitude and 78-48-0 West Longitude.
The Audio Division requests comment on a petition filed by Great Plains Christian Radio, Inc. proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 229A at Cordell, OK for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *229A at Cordell are 35-17-24 North Latitude and 98-59-24 West Longitude.
The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed by Great Plains Christian Radio, Inc. and University of Oklahoma proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 286A at Weatherford, OK for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *286A at Weatherford are 35-33-2 North Latitude and 98-43-59 West Longitude.
The Audio Division requests comment on a petition filed by Sister Sherry Lynn Foundation, Inc. proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 283A at Wynnewood, OK for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *283A at Wynnewood are 34-38-42 North Latitude and 97-10-0 West Longitude.
The Audio Division requests comment on petitions filed by Northwest Community Radio Project, Dallas, Oregon Seventh-Day Adventist Church, Radio Bilingue, Inc., and Lifetime Ministries, Inc. proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 252C3 at Dallas, Oregon for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *252C3 at Dallas are 44-55-6 North Latitude and 123-19-0 West Longitude.
The Audio Division request comment on a petition filed by Radio Bilingue, Inc. proposing the reservation of vacant Channel 251C1 at Madras, Oregon for noncommercial use. The reference coordinates for Channel *251C1 at Madras are 44-50-2 NL and 120-45-55 WL. Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR Part 73 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Massachusetts, is amended by adding Channel *282A and by removing Channel 282A at West Tisbury.
3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Michigan, is amended by adding Channel *279A and by removing Channel 279A at Hubbardston.
4. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Missouri, is amended by adding Channel *278C2 and by removing Channel 278C2 at Huntsville; by adding Channel *265C3 and by removing Channel 265C3 at Laurie; by adding Channel *247C3 and by removing Channel 247C3 at Madison.
5. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under North Carolina, is amended by adding Channel *237A and by removing Channel 237A at Dillsboro.
6. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under North Dakota, is amended by adding Channel *264C and by removing Channel 264C at Berthold.
7. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under New York, is amended by adding Channel *221A and by removing Channel 221A at Amherst.
8. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Oklahoma, is amended by adding Channel *229A and by removing Channel 229A at Cordell; by adding Channel *286A and by removing Channel 286A at Weatherford; by adding Channel *283A and by removing Channel 283A at Wynnewood.
9. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Oregon, is amended by adding Channel *252C3 and by removing Channel 252C3 at Dallas; and by adding Channel *251C1 and by removing Channel 251C1 at Madras.
Rural Housing Service, Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the subject agencies' intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection in support of the programs for 7 CFR Part 1806, subpart A, “Real Property Insurance.” This renewal does not involve any revisions to the program regulations.
Comments on this notice must be received on or before July 12, 2004 to be assured of consideration.
Cathy Quayle, Senior Loan Officer, USDA, FSA, Farm Loan Programs, Loan Making Division, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0522, Washington, DC 20250-0522, telephone (202) 690-4018. Electronic mail:
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from: Renita Bolden, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division at (202) 692-0035.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The California Coast Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC) will meet on June 2 and 3, 2004, in Lake County, California. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss issues relating to implementing the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP).
The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 2, and from 9 a.m. to noon on June 3, 2004.
The meeting will be held at the Robinson Rancheria Administration Building, 1545 E. Highway 20 in Nice, CA.
Phebe Brown, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, 825 N. Humboldt Avenue, Willows, CA, 95988, (530) 934-1137; e-mail
Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) update; (2) Provincial Interagency Executive Committee (PIEC) response to the Aquatic Conservation Subcommittee report and recommendations; (3) Redwood National and State Parks public scoping for the Updated Road Rehabilitation Strategy; (4) follow up proposal regarding Redwood Creek Estuary restoration; (5) panel discussion on options for silvicultural treatments; (6) agency and constituency updates; (7) introduction of an issue for consideration by the PAC concerning the collaboration role of the PAC on Healthy Forests Restoration Act projects: (8) field trip to the Upper Lake District, Pillsbury Homesite Fuel Reduction Project area; and (9) public comment. The meeting is open to the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.
Notice of a finding of no significant impact.
Pursuant to section 102(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 an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the McKenzie Canyon Irrigation Project Plan and Environmental Assessment, Sisters, Oregon.
Bob Graham, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 101 SW. Main, Suite 1300, Portland, Oregon 97204, telephone 503-414-3200.
The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Bob Graham, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement is not needed for this project.
The project purpose is for agricultural water management and water conservation. The planned works of improvement include the replacement of 14.5 miles of open irrigation water delivery canals with 10.5 miles of high density polyethylene (HDPE) pressurized pipelines, the addition of seven miles of on-farm pipeline laterals, and the installation of three livestock/wildlife watering facilities. This project will conserve 3,745 acre feet of water, save 3.3 million kilowatts of electricity, and enhance fishery habitat and water quality in Squaw Creek.
The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various Federal, State and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Terry Nelson, NRCS, 503-414-3014.
No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board), by the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 40, requesting authority to expand and reorganize its zone in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, within the Cleveland Customs port of entry. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on May 5, 2004.
FTZ 40 was approved on September 29, 1978 (Board Order 135, 43 FR 46886, 10/11/78) and expanded in June 1982 (Board Order 194, 47 FR 27579, 6/25/82); April 1992 (Board Order 574, 57 FR 13694, 4/17/92); February 1997 (Board Order 870, 62 FR 7750, 2/20/97); June 1999 (Board Order 1040, 64 FR 33242, 6/22/99); April 2002 (Board Order 1224, 67 FR 20087, 4/15/02); August 2003 (Board Order 1289, 68 FR 52384, 9/3/03; Board Order 1290, 68 FR 52384, 9/3/03; and, Board Order 1295, 68 FR 52383, 9/3/03); and, March 2004 (Board Order 1320, 69 FR 13283, 3/22/04 and Board Order 1322, 69 FR 17642, 4/5/04).
The general-purpose zone project currently consists of the following sites in the Cleveland, Ohio, area:
The applicant is now requesting authority to expand
The applicant is also requesting redesignation of the general-purpose zone sites as follows:
In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.
Public comment on the application is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at one of the following addresses:
The closing period for their receipt is July 12, 2004. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to July 26, 2004).
A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available during this time for public inspection at address Number 1 listed above, and at the U.S. Department of Commerce Export Assistance Center, 600 Superior Avenue East, Suite 700, Cleveland, OH 44114.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board), by the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 40, requesting authority to expand its zone in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, within the Cleveland Customs port of entry. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on May 5, 2004.
FTZ 40 was approved on September 29, 1978 (Board Order 135, 43 FR 46886, 10/11/78) and expanded in June 1982 (Board Order 194, 47 FR 27579, 6/25/82); April 1992 (Board Order 574, 57 FR 13694, 4/17/92); February 1997 (Board Order 870, 62 FR 7750, 2/20/97); June 1999 (Board Order 1040, 64 FR 33242, 6/22/99); April 2002 (Board Order 1224, 67 FR 20087, 4/15/02); August 2003 (Board Order 1289, 68 FR 52384, 9/3/03; Board Order 1290, 68 FR 52384, 9/3/03; and, Board Order 1295, 68 FR 52383, 9/3/03); and, March 2004 (Board Order 1320, 69 FR 13283, 3/22/04 and Board Order 1322, 69 FR 17642, 4/5/04).
The general-purpose zone project currently consists of the following sites in the Cleveland, Ohio, area:
The applicant is now requesting authority to expand the general-purpose zone to include an additional site in the area:
In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff
Public comment on the application is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at one of the following addresses:
1.
2.
The closing period for their receipt is July 12, 2004. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to July 26, 2004).
A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available during this time for public inspection at address Number 1 listed above, and at the U.S. Department of Commerce Export Assistance Center, 600 Superior Avenue East, Suite 700, Cleveland, OH 44114.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Foreign Trade Zone of Central Texas, Inc., grantee of FTZ 183, requesting authority to reorganize and expand FTZ 183 and SZ 183A (Dell Computer Corporation) in Austin, Texas, within and adjacent to the Austin Customs port of entry. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on May 5, 2004.
FTZ 183 was approved on December 23, 1991 (Board Order 550, 57 FR 42, 1/2/92), expanded twice in 1998 (Board Order 964, 63 FR 13837, 3/23/98; Board Order 994, 63 FR 39071, 7/21/98), expanded in 1999 (Board Order 1035, 64 FR 19978, 4/23/99), and expanded in 2001 (Board Order 1143, 66 FR 16650, 3/27/01). The zone currently consists of eight sites in the Austin, Texas, area:
Subzone 183A was approved on November 16, 1992 (Board Order 607, 57 FR 56902, 12/1/92) and expanded in 1996 (Board Order 861, 62 FR 1316, 1/9/97), in 1997 (Board Order 912, 62 FR 42486, 8/7/97) and in 1999 (Board Order 1068, 64 FR 72643, 12/28/99). The subzone currently consists of the following six sites in Austin:
The applicant is requesting authority to reorganize and expand the zone project as follows:
In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.
Public comment on the application is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at one of the following addresses:
The closing period for their receipt is July 12, 2004. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to July 26, 2004.
A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available during this time for public inspection at address Number 1 listed above, and at the U.S. Department of Commerce Export Assistance Center, 1700 North Congress, Suite 130, Austin, TX 78701.
In the Matter of: Charlie Kuan, 2541 Robin Court, Union City, California 94587, Respondent
The Bureau of Industry and Security, United States Department of commerce (“BIS”) having initiated an administrative proceeding against Charlie Kuan, the former President of Suntek Microwave Inc., (“Kuan”) pursuant to Section 766.3 of the Export Administration Regulations (currently codified at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2003)) (“Regulations”),
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
BIS and Kuan having entered into a Settlement Agreement pursuant to Section 766.18(b) of the Regulations whereby they agreed to settle this matter in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth therein, and the terms of the Settlement Agreement having been approved by me;
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in
Fourth, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the denied person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the denied person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the denied person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the denied person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the denied person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the denied person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the denied person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
Fifth, that, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to a Denied Person by affiliation, ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions of the Order.
Sixth, that this order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or other transaction subject to the Regulations where the only items involved that are subject to the Regulations are the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-origin technology.
Seventh, that, as authorized by Section 766.18(c) of the Regulations, the civil penalty set forth above shall be suspended in its entirety for one year from the date of this Order, and shall thereafter be waived, provided that during the period of suspension, Kuan has committed no violation of the Act or any regulation, order or license issued thereunder.
Eighth, that the charging letter, the Settlement Agreement, and this Order, in addition to the record of the case, shall be made available to the public.
This Order, which constitutes the final agency action in this matter, is effective immediately.
In the Matter of: Suntek Microwave, Inc., 8698 Thorton Avenue, Newark, California 94560, Respondent
The Bureau of Industry and Security, United States Department of Commerce (“BIS”) having initiated an administrative proceeding against Suntek Microwave, Inc. (“Suntek”) pursuant to Section 766.3 of the Export Administration Regulations (currently codified at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2003)) (“Regulations”),
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
BIS and Suntek having entered into a Settlement Agreement pursuant to Section 766.18(b) of the Regulations whereby they agreed to settle this matter in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth therein, and the terms of the Settlement Agreement having been approved by me; It is therefore ordered:
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the denied person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the denied person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the denied person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the denied person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the denied person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the denied person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the denied person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
This Order, which constitutes the final agency action in this matter, is effective immediately.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of final results and rescission in part of antidumping duty administrative review.
On November 6, 2003, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate products (steel plate) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). The review covers steel plate exported to the United States by Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (DSM) during the period from February 1, 2002 through January 31, 2003. We provided interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results of review. After analyzing the comments
May 12, 2004.
Jeff Pedersen or Howard Smith, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office IV, Group II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2769 or (202) 482-5193, respectively.
On November 6, 2003, the Department published in the
The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
The products covered by the antidumping duty order are certain hot-rolled carbon-quality steel: (1) Universal mill plates (
The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2002 through January 31, 2003.
We preliminarily rescinded the review with respect to Korea Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (KISCO) and Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union) because they reported that they made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. The Department reviewed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, which supports the claims that these companies did not export subject merchandise during the POR. The record evidence demonstrates that KISCO and Union did not export subject merchandise during the POR. We received no comment on this issue. Therefore, in accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with Department's practice, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to KISCO and Union.
In the
All issues raised in the case brief submitted by DSM are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” from Holly A. Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration (
We determine that the following weighted-average percentage margin exists for the period February 1, 2002 through January 31, 2003:
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of steel plate from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for DSM will be the rate shown above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent review period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered by any segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be the “all others” rate of 0.98 percent, which is the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation, adjusted for the export subsidy rate found in the countervailing duty investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
The Department will determine, and the CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 351.212(b)(1), the Department has calculated an importer-specific assessment rate for merchandise subject to this review. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 C.F.R. § 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent increase in antidumping duties by the full amount of the antidumping and/or countervailing duties reimbursed.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 § C.F.R. 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability and request for comment.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received an application for incidental take permit 1481 (Permit) from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). As required by the ESA, IDFG's application includes a conservation plan (Plan) designed to minimize and mitigate any such take of endangered or threatened species. The Permit application is for the incidental take of ESA-listed adult and juvenile salmonids associated with otherwise lawful recreational fisheries on non-listed species in the Snake River and its tributaries in the State of Idaho. NMFS also announces the availability of a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Permit modification application under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This document serves to notify the public of the availability for comment of the permit modification application and the associated draft EA before a final decision on whether to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact is made by NMFS. All comments received will become part of the public record and will be available for review pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA.
Written comments on the draft EA must be received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific daylight time on May 27, 2004.
Written comments and requests for copies of the draft EA should be addressed to Herb Pollard, Salmon Recovery Division, 10215 W. Emerald, Suite 180, Boise, ID 83704, or faxed to (208) 378-5699. Comments on this draft EA may be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is
Herb Pollard, Boise, ID, at phone number (208) 378-5614 or e-mail:
This notice is relevant to the Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon (
On May 26, 2000, NMFS issued permit 1233 to the State of Idaho to conduct recreational fisheries managed by IDFG during 2000 through 2004 on non-listed species in the Snake River and its tributaries in the State of Idaho. Permit 1233 authorizes IDFG an incidental take of adult and juvenile, threatened, naturally produced Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon (
IDFG requests a new permit to modify timing of currently authorized fisheries, to expand currently authorized fishing areas, and to apply an abundance-based sliding scale to incidental take limits for the fisheries. The fishery area in the Salmon River would be increased from the current boundaries of the mouth of Hammer Creek 30 miles (48.2803 km) upstream to the mouth of the Little Salmon River, to include the area from the mouth of the Salmon River upstream approximately 120 miles (193.121 km) to the mouth of the South Fork Salmon River. IDFG also requests that a sliding scale of harvest impacts, based on the combined return of listed spring and summer run chinook salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam be applied to the allowable incidental take of adult, threatened, Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon associated with the authorized fisheries. The proposed permit is the fourth in a series of permits (Permit 844, 1993-1998; Permit 1150, 1999; and Permit 1233, 2000-2004 preceded this application) which have provided ESA authorization for recreational fishing activities that may incidentally take listed Snake River salmon and steelhead.
In its Plan, IDFG is proposing to limit state recreational fisheries such that the incidental impacts on ESA-listed salmonids will be minimized. Three alternatives for the IDFG fisheries are provided in the Plan: (1) The no action alternative; (2) the proposed conservation plan alternative (based on continuing fisheries at levels similar to those permitted since 1995); and (3) historical fishing levels.
The EA package includes a draft EA evaluating whether the potential effects of issuing the new incidental take permit to replace the existing permit and whether such issuance is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. Three Federal action alternatives have been analyzed in the draft EA: (1) The no action alternative; (2) issue a permit with conditions; and (3) issue a permit without conditions. NEPA requires Federal agencies to conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed actions to determine if the actions may affect the human environment. NMFS expects to take action on the ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) submittal received from the applicant. Therefore, NMFS is seeking public input on the scope of the required NEPA analysis, including the range of reasonable alternatives and associated impacts of any alternatives.
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA and the NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6). NMFS will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of the NEPA regulations and section 10(a) of the ESA. If it is determined that the requirements are met, a permit will be issued for incidental takes of ESA-listed anadromous salmonids under the jurisdiction of NMFS. The final NEPA and permit determinations will not be completed until after the end of the 15-day comment period and will fully consider all public comments received during the comment period. NMFS will publish a record of its final action in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), this notice advises the public that NMFS intends to gather information necessary to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS will identify effects on the human environment that may potentially result from implementation of two hatchery Resource Management Plans jointly proposed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes (referred to as the co-managers) for NMFS evaluation and determination under the Endangered Species Act for threatened salmon. The Resource Management Plans are the proposed framework through which the co-managers would jointly manage Puget Sound region hatchery programs rearing steelhead and chinook, coho, pink, sockeye, and chum salmon while meeting conservation requirements specified under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
NMFS provides this notice to (1) advise other agencies and the public of our intentions and, (2) obtain suggestions and information on the scope of issues to include in the EIS.
Written scoping comments are encouraged, and should be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
The meeting dates and locations are:
Address comments and requests for information related to preparation of the EIS, or requests to be added to the mailing list for this project, to Allyson Ouzts, NMFS, 525 N.E. Oregon Street, Suite 510, Portland, OR 97232; facsimile (503) 872-2737. Comments may be submitted by e-mail to the following address:
Allyson Ouzts, NMFS, by phone at (503) 736-4736. In addition, further information regarding this project, including the co-managers' Resource Management Plans and their associated HGMPs may be found at:
The following species and Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) under NMFS jurisdiction potentially would be affected by the proposed action:
Puget Sound chinook salmon (
Hood Canal summer chum salmon (
Steller sea-lions (
Listed species regulated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service that may be affected by the proposed action include bull trout (
NEPA requires Federal agencies to conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed actions to determine if the actions may affect the human environment. According to NMFS' NEPA environmental review procedures (NAO-216.6), NMFS' action of evaluating the co-managers' Resource Management Plans for ESA compliance is a major Federal action subject to environmental review under NEPA. Therefore, NMFS is seeking public input on the scope of the required NEPA analysis, including the range of reasonable alternatives and the associated impacts of any alternatives.
The ESA contains several sections that set the foundation for managing listed species. Section 9(a)(1) of the ESA makes it illegal for any person subject to United States jurisdiction to “take” ESA listed Pacific salmon without authorization from NMFS. The term “take” is defined under the ESA as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). NMFS' definition of harm includes significant habitat modification or degradation where it kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, which include breeding, feeding, spawning, migrating, rearing, and sheltering (64 FR 60727, November 8, 1999).
Section 4(d) of the ESA discusses the treatment of species listed as threatened. It states that, whenever a species is listed as threatened, the Secretary “shall issue such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species.” Such protective regulations may include any or all of the prohibitions that apply automatically to protect endangered species under ESA section 9.
In 2000, NMFS applied the ESA section 9 take prohibitions to several threatened salmonid species. However, NMFS also provided some exceptions to the application of these section 9 take prohibitions. These exceptions are referred to as 4(d) limits; they specify categories of activities to which section 9 take prohibitions may not apply when activities contribute to conserving listed salmonids or are governed by programs that adequately limit impacts on listed salmonids.
Under Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule, State and Tribal governments conducting jointly-managed hatchery or fishery activities would not be subject to the ESA section 9 take prohibitions provided that activities are implemented under a Resource Management Plan that meets the requirements of Limit 6. For NMFS to determine that a Resource Management Plan meets the requirements of Limit 6, the plan must clearly state its intended scope and area of impact and define management objectives consistent with the criteria referenced in Limit 6 of the 4(d) rule.
The co-managers have jointly submitted to NMFS two Resource Management Plans for Puget Sound region hatcheries. One plan describes hatchery programs that produce chinook salmon. The other plan describes hatchery programs that produce steelhead, and coho, sockeye, pink, and chum salmon. Appended to the overarching Resource Management Plans are 117 individual Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) for each hatchery program. The HGMPs describe each hatchery program in more detail, including specific measures proposed by the co-managers to minimize the risk of adversely affecting Puget Sound chinook salmon and Hood Canal summer chum salmon. NMFS listed both salmon species as threatened in March 1999 (64 FR 14308). The Puget Sound chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU; NMFS' application of distinct population segment to salmon) includes all naturally spawned spring, summer, and fall runs of chinook salmon in the Puget Sound region from the North Fork Nooksack River, extending into south Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and the eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca, including the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula. This ESU is located in portions of Clallam, Island, King, Kitsap, Jefferson, Mason, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston, and Whatcom Counties in Washington State. The Hood Canal summer chum salmon ESU includes all naturally spawned summer-run chum in tributaries to Hood Canal and Discovery, Sequim, and Dungeness Bays in the eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca. This ESU is located in portions of Clallam, Jefferson, Kitsap, and Mason Counties of Washington State.
NMFS will conduct an environmental review of the Resource Management Plans and prepare an EIS. The EIS will consider potential impacts on listed and non-listed species and their habitats, water quality and quantity, socioeconomics, and environmental justice. The EIS could also include information regarding potential impacts on other components of the human environment, including air quality, transportation, and cultural resources.
NMFS will rigorously explore and objectively evaluate a full range of
Comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties to ensure that the EIS considers the full range of related issues and alternatives to the proposed action. NMFS requests that comments be as specific as possible. In particular, NMFS requests information regarding: other possible alternatives; the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that implementation of the proposed Resource Management Plans could have on endangered and threatened species and their communities and habitats; potential adaptive management and/or monitoring provisions; funding issues; baseline environmental conditions in Clallam, Island, King, Kitsap, Jefferson, Mason, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston, and Whatcom Counties; other plans or projects that might be relevant to this proposed project; and potential methods to minimize and mitigate for impacts.
Written comments concerning the proposed action and its environmental review should be directed to NMFS as described above (see
The environmental review of this project will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Issuance of permit.
Notice is hereby given that Dr. Thane Wibbels, Department of Biology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 has been issued a permit to take Kemp's ridley (
The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
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;
Southeast Region, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432; phone (727)570-5301; fax (727)570-5320.
Patrick Opay or Jennifer Skidmore, (301)713-2289.
On June 16, 2003 notice was published in the
The permit holder will utilize tangle net methodology combined with observational surveys from boats to study sea turtles in the estuarine systems of Alabama state waters from Grand Bay to Perdido Bay. The purpose of the research is to provide a basic understanding of the abundance, location, and movement of sea turtles within these estuarine ecosystems. This research will help resource managers develop optimal management strategies for these estuaries in order to conserve and protect sea turtles and their habitat. The permit holder will take 30 Kemp's ridley, 30 loggerhead, and 30 green sea turtles annually. Turtles will be captured with a 9.9 inch (25 cm) mesh tangle net that is 731.7 feet (223 m) long by 19.7 feet (6 m) deep. Turtles will be measured, weighed, flipper tagged, blood sampled and released. A subset of five loggerhead and five Kemp's ridley sea turtles will be tagged with a sonic or satellite transmitter. The duration of this permit is 5 years.
Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Issuance of permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that the NMFS Northeast Fishery Science Center (Responsible Official- Dr. John Boreman) has been issued a modification to scientific research Permit No. 1295.
The modification and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
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;
Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9200; fax (978)281-9371.
Patrick Opay or Ruth Johnson, (301)713-2289.
On February 5, 2004, notice was published in the
The modification authorizes the NEFSC (1) to conduct research designed to develop and test methods to reduce incidental bycatch of sea turtles that occurs in a commercial pound net fishery (2) to sample sea turtles captured during research designed to develop and test methods to reduce incidental bycatch of these species that occurs in scallop drag fisheries, and (3) to sample sea turtles captured during the NEFSC's biennial shark longline surveys. The modification would authorize an additional take of 113 loggerhead (
Issuance of this modification, as required by the ESA was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Issuance of permit modification.
Notice is hereby given that J. David Whitaker, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 12559, Charleston, South Carolina 29422-2559, has been issued a modification to scientific research Permit No. 1245.
The modification 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,
Southeast Region, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432; phone (727)570-5301; fax (727)570-5320.
Jennifer Jefferies or Carrie Hubard, (301)713-2289.
On November 13, 2003, notice was published in the
Permit No. 1245 authorizes the permit holder to capture, handle, flipper and PIT tag, blood and tissue sample, perform ultrasound and release 350 loggerhead (
Issuance of this modification, as required by the ESA was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
Technology Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of the renewal of the National Medal of Technology Nomination Evaluation Committee Charter.
Please note that the Secretary of Commerce, with the concurrence of the General Services Administration, has renewed the Charter for the National Medal of Technology Nomination Evaluation Committee on April 12, 2004. It has been determined that the Committee is necessary and in the public interest.
Mildred Porter, Director and Designated Federal Official, National Medal of Technology, Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 4843, Washington, DC 20230, phone: 202/482-5572; e-mail:
Technology Administration, Department of Commerce.
Announcement: call for nominations for the National Medal of Technology 2005.
The Department of Commerce's Technology Administration
Established by Congress in 1980, the President of the United States awards the National Medal of Technology annually to our Nation's leading innovators. If you know of a candidate who has made an outstanding contribution in technology, obtain a nomination form from:
The deadline for submission of an application is July 28, 2004.
The NMT Nomination form for the year 2005 can be obtained by visiting the Web site at
Mildred Porter, Director, at
The National Medal of Technology is the highest honor awarded by the President of the United States to America's leading innovators. Enacted by Congress in 1980, the Medal of Technology was first awarded in 1985. The Medal is given annually to individuals, teams, or companies who have improved the American economy and quality of life by their outstanding contributions through technology.
The primary purpose of the National Medal of Technology is to recognize American innovators whose vision, creativity, and brilliance in moving ideas to market have had a profound and lasting impact on our economy and way of life. The Medal highlights the national importance of fostering technological innovation based upon solid science, resulting in commercially successful products and services.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“the Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Comments must be submitted on or before July 12, 2004.
Comments may be mailed to Gary Martinaitis, Division of Market Oversight, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.
Gary Martinaitis, (202) 418-5209; FAX (202) 418-5527; e-mail:
Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA,
With respect to the following collection of information, the Commission invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality of, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
Parts 15 through 21 of the commission's regulations under the Commodity Exchange Act (Act) require large trader reports from clearing members, futures commission merchants, and foreign brokers and traders. These rules are designed to provide the Commission with information to effectively conduct its market surveillance program, which includes the detection and prevention of price manipulation and enforcement of speculative position limits.
The Commission estimates the burden of the of this collection of information as follows:
U.S. Civil Servants on Temporary Duty to Long BINH, Republic of Vietnam, From About April 4, 1972, to About April 27, 1972, to Design a Commercial Carrier Commodity Tariff and Shipment Control System Under the provisions of Section 401, Public Law 95-202 and DoD Directive 1000.20, the Department of Defense Civilian/Military Service Review Board has accepted an application on behalf of a group know as: U.S. Civil Servants on Temporary Duty at Long Binh, Republic of Vietnam, From about April 4, 1972 to about April 27, 1972, to Design a Commercial Carrier Commodity Tariff and Shipment Control System.
Persons with information or documentation pertinent to the determination of whether the service of this group should be considered active military service to the Armed Forces of the United States are encouraged to submit such information or documentation within 60 days to the DoD Civilian/Military Service Review Board, 1535 Command Drive, EE-Wing, 3rd Floor, Andrews AFB, MD 20762-7002. Copies of documents or other materials submitted cannot be returned.
Pursuant to Section 9355, Title 10, United States Code, the U.S. Air Force Academy Board of Visitors will meet at the U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 14-15 May 2004. The purpose of the meeting is to consider the morale and discipline, curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, academic methods, and other matters relating to the Academy. A portion of the meeting will be open to the public while other portions will be closed to the public to discuss matters listed in Paragraphs (2), (6), and Subparagraph (9)(B) of Subsection (c) of Section 552b, Title 5, United States Code. The determination to close certain sessions is based on the consideration that portions of the briefings and discussion will relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the Board of Visitors or the Academy; involve information of a personal nature, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; or involve discussions of information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate implementation of future agency action. Meeting sessions will be held in Fairchild Hall.
For further information, contact Lieutenant Colonel Tom Joyce, Military Assistant, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Force Management and Personnel), SAF/MRM, 1660 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1660, (703) 693-9765.
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 11, 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,
Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements
Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of proposed power, transmission, and ancillary services rates.
The Western Area Power Administration (Western) is proposing new rates for ancillary, Western power, the Central Valley Project (CVP) transmission, the California-Oregon Transmission Project (COTP) transmission, and the Pacific Alternating Current Intertie (PACI) transmission services. PACI transmission is a new service. The current rates for existing services expire December 31, 2004, which coincides with the expiration of the current CVP marketing plan. The CVP 2004 Power Marketing Plan goes into effect January 1, 2005. The proposed rates will apply under the 2004 Power Marketing Plan.
The proposed rates will provide sufficient revenue to pay all annual costs, including interest expense, and repay required investment within the allowable time period. Rate impacts are detailed in a rate brochure available to all interested parties. The proposed new rates are scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2005, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2009. This
The consultation and comment period will begin on the date of publication of the
Western will accept oral and written comments at a public comment forum. The public comment forum date is: June 17, 2004, 1 p.m. PDT, Folsom, CA.
Western will accept written comments anytime during the consultation and comment period.
Send written comments to Ms. Debbie R. Dietz, Sierra Nevada Customer Service Region, Western Area Power Administration, 114 Parkshore Drive, Folsom, CA 95630-4710, e-mail
The public information and public comment forum location is: Folsom Community Center, 52 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA.
Ms. Debbie Dietz, Rates Manager, Sierra Nevada Customer Service Region, Western Area Power Administration, 114 Parkshore Drive, Folsom, CA 95630-4710, telephone (916) 353-4453, e-mail ddietz@wapa.gov.
This
Under the 2004 Power Marketing Plan, each preference customer (except first preference customers) that has signed a Base Resource contract is a Base Resource customer and is allocated a percentage of the Base Resource. Base Resource is defined in the 2004 Power Marketing Plan as CVP and Washoe Project power output and power purchase contracts extending beyond 2004 determined by Western to be available for marketing, after meeting the requirements of project use and first preference customers, and any adjustments for maintenance, reserves, transformation losses, and certain ancillary services.
The CVP has a unique type of preference customer called a first preference customer. A first preference customer is defined in the 2004 Power Marketing Plan as a preference customer and/or a preference entity (an entity qualified to use, but not using, preference power) within a county of origin (Trinity, Calaveras, and Tuolumne) as specified under the Trinity River Division Act (69 Stat. 719) and the New Melones project provisions of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat.1173, 1191-1192).
To have a consistent billing process for Base Resource and first preference customers, before the start of each FY, a percentage will be developed for each first preference customer based on the following formula:
For January through September 2005, the same formula will be used with data for the 9-month period instead of annual data.
During March of each year (except March 2005), each first preference customer's percentage will be reviewed by Western. The review will take into account the actual and estimated current FY data used in the first preference customer's percentage formula. If Western's review results in a change in a first preference customer's percentage of more than one-half of 1 percent, the percentage will be revised for that first preference customer for the remainder of the current FY. The review will not occur in March 2005 because the 2004 Power Marketing Plan will have been in effect for a very short period of time.
Each first preference customer's monthly charges are determined by the following formula: First preference customer's monthly costs = (All first preference customers' share of 6-month power revenue requirement divided by 6) times the first preference customer's percentage.
The first preference customers' share of the annual power revenue requirement is determined by summing all the first preference customers' percentages and multiplying that sum by the annual power revenue requirement. Starting with FY 06, the first preference customers' share of the annual power revenue requirement is divided into two 6-month revenue requirements. The first 6-month revenue requirement will be collected from October through March and the second 6-month revenue requirement will be collected from April through September. The estimated April through September power revenue requirement will be reviewed by Western in March (with the exception of March 2005). Western's review will analyze financial data relating to the power revenue requirement for October through February, to the extent it is available, as well as forecasted data for March through September. If, as a result of Western's review, the power revenue requirement changes by $5 million or more, the April through September power revenue requirement will be revised.
After the first preference customers' percentages have been calculated for January through September 2005, their share of the power revenue requirement will be determined and divided by nine to calculate the monthly first preference customers' revenue requirement.
Base Resource customer's monthly cost = Base Resource customer's percentage times the Base Resource monthly revenue requirement.
A customer's Base Resource percentage may be adjusted as provided for in their contract; e.g., participation in the exchange program.
After the first preference customers' share of the annual power revenue requirement has been determined, the remainder of the annual power revenue requirement is recovered from the Base Resource customers (Base Resource revenue requirement). The estimated annual Base Resource revenue requirement will be collected in two 6-month periods; 25 percent will be collected from October through March and 75 percent will be collected from April through September. Allocating the Base Resource revenue requirement in this manner more closely aligns the Base Resource revenue requirement with the Base Resource available during the two 6-month periods. A Base Resource monthly revenue requirement is calculated by dividing the Base Resource estimated 6-month revenue requirement by 6 months. The estimated April through September Base Resource revenue requirement will be reviewed by Western in March. Western's review will analyze financial data relating to the Base Resource revenue requirement for October through February, to the extent it is available, as well as forecasted data for March through September. If, as a result of Western's review, there is a change in the Base Resource revenue requirement of $5 million or more, the April through September Base Resource revenue requirement will be revised. A customer's Base Resource costs are independent of the Base Resource received. Base Resource energy not used by any preference customer would be sold, if possible, and the revenues would reduce the Base Resource revenue requirement.
Before January 1, 2005, Western will estimate the power revenue requirement for January through September 2005 and calculate the first preference customers' share. Once the first preference customers' share of the power revenue requirement has been determined, the Base Resource revenue requirement will be allocated 25 percent to the 3-month period, January through March 2005, and 75 percent to the 6-month period, April through September 2005. Western will not review the power revenue requirement, the Base Resource revenue requirement, or the first preference customers' percentages in March 2005, since very limited actual data under the 2004 Power Marketing Plan would be available in March 2005. The estimated January through September 2005 power revenue requirement is $30 million of which the first preference customers' share is 3.7 percent, or $123,333 per month. The estimated January through September 2005 Base Resource revenue requirement is $28,890,000. For January through March 2005, the estimated Base Resource revenue requirement is $2,407,500. For April through September 2005, the estimated Base Resource monthly revenue requirement is $3,611,250. This estimated data is subject to change prior to the rates taking effect. The estimated data for the power revenue requirement, first preference customers' percentages, and the Base Resource Revenue Requirement for January through September 2005 will be finalized by Western on or before December 1, 2004.
All costs associated with custom product power will be recovered through a power rate formula that passes through the cost of the purchase to a specific customer(s). Under the 2004 Power Marketing Plan, custom product power is power supplied by Western to meet a customer's load. Western may make custom product power purchases for a group of customers or for an individual customer. Costs for custom product power purchases that are funded in advance by the customer(s) will be passed through to that customer(s) based on the power scheduled to the customer(s). Custom product power funded in advance that is surplus to the load requirements of the customer(s) will be sold. If the customer(s) fails to have an account available to receive the proceeds from the sale of surplus custom product power, the proceeds are forfeited to Western and will be applied to the custom product power purchase cost for the customer(s).
If the custom product power purchase is funded through appropriations or use of receipts authority, the cost of the custom product power is passed through to the customer(s) that uses the power. Custom product power funded
The 2004 Power Marketing Plan does not offer the same type of power service that is available under the current power marketing plan. Under the current power marketing plan, a contract rate of delivery allocates an amount of capacity with associated energy to each preference customer, and the customer can take up to that amount of capacity in any hour. The Base Resource and first preference power is primarily hydrogeneration available subject to water conditions and operating constraints. Custom product power is power purchased by Western to meet a customer's load and may include long- and short-term purchases at various rates.
The proposed rate formula for CVP firm transmission includes three components:
When possible, Western will pass through directly to the appropriate customer, the Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits in the same manner Western is charged or credited. If the Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits cannot be passed through directly to the appropriate customer in the same manner Western is charged or credited, the charges or credits will be passed through using Component 1 of the CVP transmission rate formula.
Western will revise the rate resulting from Component 1 of the proposed rate formula based on: (a) Updated financial data available in March of each year; and (b) a change in the numerator or denominator that results in a rate change of at least $0.05 per kilowattmonth (kWmonth). The estimated rate resulting from Component 1 of the proposed rate formula for January through September 2005 is $0.93 per kWmonth. This is a 63-percent increase from the existing rate of $0.57 per kWmonth.
The proposed rate formula for CVP non-firm transmission includes the same three components used in the proposed rate formula for CVP firm transmission. The estimated rate resulting from Component 1 of the proposed rate formula for CVP non-firm transmission service for January through September 2005 is 1.30 mills/kilowatthour (kWh). This rate is a 30-percent increase from the existing rate of 1.00 mill/kWh. The percentage increase for the CVP non-firm transmission estimated rates is smaller than the percentage increase for CVP firm transmission estimated rates because the existing CVP non-firm transmission rate was rounded up to 1.00 mill/kWh. The increase in CVP transmission rates is primarily due to an increase in O&M costs and a change in Western's use of the CVP transmission system under the 2004 Power Marketing Plan. Under the current power marketing plan, Western is reserving transmission capacity based on the maximum output of directly connected CVP generating plants under normal operating conditions. Under the 2004 Power Marketing Plan, for rate design purposes, Western is treated as taking CVP NITS. The rates resulting from Component 1 of the proposed rate formula may be discounted for short-term sales.
The proposed rate formula for CVP transmission service is based on a revenue requirement that recovers: (1) The CVP transmission system costs for facilities associated with providing transmission service; (2) the nonfacility costs allocated to transmission service; (3) CVP generation costs for providing reactive supply and voltage control; (4) the pass through of the Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits; (5) the pass through of HCA charges or credits; (6) any other statutorily required costs or charges; and (7) any other costs associated with transmission service, including uncollectible debt. Revenues from the sales of short-term transmission will offset the TRR.
Component 1 of the proposed rate formula includes Western's cost for transmission scheduling, system control and dispatch service, and reactive supply and voltage control associated with the transmission service. The proposed rate formula applies to CVP firm point-to-point transmission service and existing CVP firm pre-OATT transmission service. The estimated rates resulting from the proposed rate formula are subject to change prior to the rates taking effect. The rates will be
The proposed rate formula for CVP NITS includes three components:
When possible, Western will pass through directly to the appropriate customer, the Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits in the same manner Western is charged or credited. If the Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits cannot be passed through directly to the appropriate customer in the same manner Western is charged or credited, the charges or credits will be passed through using Component 1 of the CVP NITS rate formula.
The proposed rate formula for CVP NITS is based on a revenue requirement that recovers: (1) The CVP transmission system costs for facilities associated with providing transmission service; (2) the nonfacility costs allocated to transmission service; (3) CVP generation costs for providing reactive supply and voltage control; (4) the pass through of Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits; (5) the pass through of HCA charges or credits; (6) any other statutorily required costs or charges; and (7) any other costs associated with transmission service, including uncollectible debt. For January through September 2005, the estimated monthly NITS revenue requirement is $923,932.
The proposed rate formula includes Western's cost for transmission scheduling, system control and dispatch service, and reactive supply and voltage control associated with the CVP NITS. The proposed rate formula applies to CVP NITS. The estimated NITS monthly revenue requirement, resulting from the proposed rate formula, may change prior to the rates taking effect based on the final CVP TRR. The NITS monthly revenue requirement will be finalized by Western on or before December 1, 2004.
The proposed rate formula for third-party transmission includes three components:
Western will pass through directly to the appropriate customer, the Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits in the same manner Western is charged or credited, to the extent possible.
The proposed rate formula for COTP transmission includes three components:
Component 1 is the ratio of the COTP TRR to Western's share of the COTP seasonal capacity. Western will update the rate resulting from Component 1 at least 15 days before the start of each California-Oregon Intertie (COI) rating season. Seasonal definitions for summer, winter, and spring are June through October, November through March, and April through May, respectively.
When possible, Western will pass through directly to the appropriate customer, the Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits in the same manner Western is charged or credited. If the Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits cannot be passed through directly to the appropriate customer in the same manner Western is charged or credited, the charges or credits will be passed through using Component 1 of the COTP transmission rate formula.
A comparison of the estimated rates resulting from Component 1 of the proposed rate formula for COTP firm point-to-point transmission service to the existing COTP firm point-to-point transmission service rates are shown in the table below.
The proposed rate formula for COTP non-firm transmission includes the same three components used in the proposed rate formula for COTP firm transmission. A comparison of the estimated rates resulting from Component 1 of the proposed rate formula for COTP non-firm point-to-point transmission service to the existing COTP non-firm point-to-point transmission service rates, are shown in the table below.
The estimated firm and non-firm rates from Component 1 of the proposed rate formula change minimally from season to season due to a constant COI rating. The increase in COTP transmission rates is primarily due to a decrease in Western's COTP capacity available for sale. The decrease in capacity occurs because of increased usage by the Department of Energy (DOE) of its statutory entitlement at a rate which recovers only O&M costs.
The proposed rate formula for COTP firm and non-firm point-to-point transmission service is based on a revenue requirement that recovers: (1) The COTP transmission system costs for facilities associated with providing transmission service; (2) the nonfacility costs allocated to transmission service; (3) CVP generation costs for providing reactive supply and voltage control; (4) the pass through of Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits; (5) the pass through of HCA charges or credits; (6) any other statutorily required costs or charges; and (7) any other costs associated with transmission service, including uncollectible debt.
The proposed firm and non-firm rate formula includes Western's cost for transmission scheduling, system control and dispatch service, and reactive supply and voltage control associated with COTP transmission. The proposed rate formula applies to COTP point-to-point transmission service. The rates resulting from Component 1 of the proposed rate formula may be discounted for short-term sales. The estimated rates resulting from the proposed rate formula are subject to change prior to the rates taking effect. The rates resulting from the proposed rate formula for the winter season will be finalized by Western on or before December 15, 2004.
The proposed rate formula for PACI transmission includes three components:
Component 1 is the ratio of the PACI TRR to Western's share of the PACI seasonal capacity. Western will update the rate resulting from Component 1 at least 15 days before the start of each COI rating season. Seasonal definitions for summer, winter, and spring are June through October, November through March, and April through May, respectively.
When possible, Western will pass through directly to the appropriate customer, the Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits in the same manner Western is charged or credited. If the Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits cannot be passed through directly to the appropriate customer in the same manner Western is charged or credited, the charges or credits will be passed through using Component 1 of the PACI transmission rate formula.
The proposed rate formula for PACI non-firm transmission includes the same three components used in the proposed rate formula for PACI firm transmission.
The estimated firm and non-firm rates resulting from Component 1 of the proposed rate formula for PACI firm transmission service are shown in the table below.
The estimated rates from Component 1 of the proposed rate formula do not change from season to season due to a constant COI rating. There are no existing rates for PACI transmission since it is currently covered under an existing contract. The proposed rate formula for PACI transmission service is based on a revenue requirement that recovers: (1) The PACI transmission system costs for facilities associated with providing transmission service; (2) the nonfacility costs allocated to transmission service; (3) CVP generation costs for providing reactive supply and voltage control; (4) the pass through of Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits; (5) the pass through of HCA charges or credits; (6) any other statutorily required costs or charges; and (7) any other costs associated with transmission service, including uncollectible debt.
The proposed rate formula includes Western's cost for transmission scheduling, system control and dispatch service, and reactive supply and voltage control associated with PACI transmission. The proposed rate formula applies to PACI point-to-point transmission service. The rates resulting from Component 1 of the proposed rate formula may be discounted for short-term sales. The estimated rates resulting from the proposed rate formula are subject to change prior to the rates taking effect. The rates resulting from the proposed rate formula for the winter season will be finalized by Western on or before December 15, 2004.
Western intends to turn over operational control of its rights on Path 15 to the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). Transmission service for Western's right on Path 15 must be obtained under the terms and conditions established by the CAISO. Revenues received by Western for wheeling and congestion will be applied against Western's Path 15 TRR. If a significant overcollection occurs, Western will work with the CAISO on the treatment of the overcollection.
Western's costs for providing transmission scheduling, system control and dispatch service, and reactive supply and voltage control are included in the appropriate transmission rate formulas.
The proposed rate formula for spinning reserve includes three components:
When possible, Western will pass through directly to the appropriate customer, the Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits in the same manner Western is charged or credited. If the Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits cannot be passed through directly to the appropriate customer in the same manner Western is charged or credited, the charges or credits will be passed through using Component 1 of the spinning reserve rate formula.
The proposed rate formula for spinning reserve service is based on a revenue requirement that recovers: (1) The CVP generation costs associated with providing spinning reserve service; (2) the nonfacility costs allocated to spinning reserve service; (3) the cost of energy, capacity, or foregone generation that supports spinning reserve service; (4) the pass through of Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits; (5) the pass through of HCA charges or credits; and (6) any other statutorily required costs or charges. For January through September 2005, the estimated monthly revenue requirement is $165,657 per month, which results in a per-unit cost of $3.31 per kWmonth. The existing rate for spinning reserve is $1.35 per kWmonth. The spinning reserve per-unit cost calculated using the proposed rate formula is an increase of 145 percent over the existing rate. The increase is primarily due to purchases needed to support the SCA reserve requirements and increased O&M costs.
The cost for spinning reserve required to firm CVP generation for the current hour and the following hour is included in the power revenue requirement. Spinning reserves surplus to those required to support the SCA and firm CVP generation may be sold. Surplus spinning reserves will be sold at prices consistent with the CAISO markets. Revenues from the sale of surplus spinning reserves will offset the power revenue requirement. The spinning reserve rate formula will apply to SCA customers who contract with Western to provide this service. The estimated revenue requirement resulting from the proposed rate formula is subject to change prior to the rates taking effect. The revenue requirement will be finalized by Western on or before December 1, 2004.
The proposed rate formula for non-spinning reserve includes three components:
When possible, Western will pass through directly to the appropriate customer, the Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits in the same manner Western is charged or credited. If the Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits cannot be passed through directly to the appropriate customer in the same manner Western is charged or credited, the charges or credits will be passed through using Component 1 of the non-spinning reserve rate formula.
The proposed rate formula for non-spinning reserve service is based on a revenue requirement that recovers: (1) The CVP generation costs associated with providing non-spinning reserve service; (2) the nonfacility costs allocated to non-spinning reserve service; (3) the cost of energy, capacity, or foregone generation that supports non-spinning reserve service; (4) the pass through of HCA charges or credits; (5) the pass through of Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits; and (6) any other statutorily required costs or charges. For January through September 2005, the estimated monthly revenue requirement is $126,465 per month, which results in a per-unit cost of $2.53 per kWmonth. The existing rate for non-spinning reserve is $1.27 per kWmonth. The non-spinning reserve per-unit cost calculated using the proposed rate formula is an increase of 99 percent over the existing rate. The increase is primarily due to purchases needed to support the SCA reserve requirements and increased O&M costs.
The cost for non-spinning reserves required to firm CVP generation for the current hour and the following hour is included in the power revenue requirement. Non-spinning reserves surplus to those required to support the SCA and firm CVP generation may be sold. Surplus non-spinning reserves will be sold at prices consistent with the CAISO markets. Revenues from the sale of non-spinning reserves will offset the power revenue requirement. The non-spinning reserve rate formula will apply to SCA customers who contract with Western to provide this service. The estimated revenue requirement resulting from the proposed rate formula is subject to change prior to the rates taking effect. The revenue requirement will be finalized by Western on or before December 1, 2004.
The proposed rate formula for Regulation includes three components:
For SCA customers with an annual peak load of 30 MW or less, the regulating capacity requirement is deemed to be 2 MW.
A ratio is calculated of each SCA customer's regulating capacity requirement to the total regulating capacity requirement of all SCA customers. This ratio is then applied to the monthly revenue requirement to determine the SCA customer's costs for Regulation. SCA customers that self-provide Regulation will have their regulating capacity requirement adjusted to reflect the self-provision. The penalty for nonperformance by an SCA customer who has committed to self-provision for their regulating capacity requirement will be the greater of actual costs or 150 percent of the market price. Western will revise the revenue requirement used in Component 1 of the proposed rate formula based on: (a) Updated financial data available in March of each year; and (b) a change in the annual revenue requirement of $100,000 or more.
When possible, Western will pass through directly to the appropriate customer the Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits in the same manner Western is charged or credited. If the Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits cannot be passed through directly to the appropriate customer in the same manner Western is charged or credited, the charges or credits will be passed through using Component 1 of the Regulation rate formula.
The revenue requirement includes: (1) The CVP generation costs associated with providing regulation; (2) the nonfacility costs allocated to regulation; (3) the cost of energy, capacity, or foregone generation that supports Regulation; (4) the pass through of HCA charges or credits; (5) the pass through of Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits; and (6) any other statutorily required costs or charges.
For January through September 2005, the estimated monthly revenue requirement is $258,098 per month, which results in a per-unit cost of $6.45 per kWmonth. The existing rate for Regulation is $1.48 per kWmonth. The Regulation per-unit cost calculated using the proposed rate formula is an increase of 336 percent over the existing rate. The increase is primarily due to purchases needed to support the Regulation and increased O&M costs.
The Regulation revenue requirement will be recovered from SCA customers that have contracted with Western for this service. The revenues from Regulation service will be applied to the power revenue requirement. The estimated revenue requirement resulting from the proposed rate formula is subject to change prior to the rates taking effect. The revenue requirement will be finalized by Western on or before December 1, 2004.
The proposed rate formula for energy imbalance service includes three components:
To the extent possible, Western will pass through directly to the appropriate customer, the Commission or other regulatory body accepted or approved charges or credits in the same manner Western is charged or credited.
The existing rate for energy imbalance is the same as the proposed rate formula with three exceptions. Under the existing rate, deviations are measured as the amount of energy outside the bandwidth. Under the proposed rate formula, deviations outside the bandwidth are energy calculations done on an hourly average basis. Under the existing rate, the charge for deviations (energy) within the bandwidth not returned is the CVP composite rate. Under the proposed rate, there is no financial charge for deviations (energy) within the bandwidth that is not returned. Under the existing rates, the charge for negative deviations (under delivery) outside the bandwidth during on-peak hours is the greater of three times the CVP composite rate or additional costs incurred. During off-peak hours, it is the greater of the CVP composite rate or additional costs incurred. Under the proposed rate, negative deviations (under delivery) outside the bandwidth are charged at the greater of 150 percent of market price or actual cost.
The energy imbalance rate will apply to SCA customers that have contracted with Western for this service. The revenues from energy imbalance service will be applied to the power revenue requirement.
Western is proposing a change to the RAC for FY 04. Under the existing CVP Firm Power Rate Schedule CV-F10, a RAC credit for FY 04 would be applied in equal amounts to the nine power bills issued by Western from January through September 2005. Western is proposing to change the RAC to allow Western to make lump sum payments to customers for their share of the FY 04 RAC credit, as opposed to issuing credits in equal amounts to the power bills issued from January through September 2005. This change in the RAC will allow Western more flexibility as it moves to the 2004 Power Marketing Plan. This change will not affect the calculation of the FY 04 RAC or the determination of each customer's share of the FY 04 RAC.
For the October to December 2004 RAC, Western proposes to change the existing process of calculating the RAC and applying the resulting RAC credit or surcharge to the power bills issued from April through September 2005. Western proposes to delay calculation of the October through December 2004 RAC so that any outstanding project use true-ups and any unmet obligations under existing contracts associated with business that occurred prior to January 1, 2005, could be included in the October through December 2004 RAC. This would likely delay the October through December 2004 RAC until sometime in FY 06. Once this data was available, Western would calculate the October through December 2004 RAC using the existing methodology. The resulting RAC credit or surcharge would be allocated among the power customers taking firm power during October through December 2004 under the existing methodology. Western would initiate distribution of the RAC credit or surcharge within 30 days of completing the RAC calculation. If the result was a RAC credit, at Western's discretion, Western would either credit the customers' power bills to the extent possible, or Western would make a lump sum payment to the customers for their share of the RAC. If the result was a RAC surcharge, at Western's discretion, Western could collect the payment in equal installments over 9 months or as a lump sum.
These proposed rates for COTP, PACI, CVP transmission, Western power, and related services are being established pursuant to the DOE Organization Act, (42 U.S.C. 7101-7352); the Reclamation Act of 1902, (ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388), as amended and supplemented by subsequent enactments, particularly section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485(c)); and other acts that specifically apply to the project involved.
By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00, effective December 6, 2001, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The authority to develop power and transmission rates to Western's Administrator; (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand, or to disapprove such rates to the Commission. Existing DOE procedures
All brochures, studies, comments, letters, memorandums, or other documents made or kept by Western for developing the proposed rates are available for inspection and copying at the Sierra Nevada Regional Office, located at 114 Parkshore Drive, Folsom, California.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601,
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321,
Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; so this notice requires no clearance by the Office of Management and Budget.
Western has determined this rule is exempt from congressional notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services and involves matters of procedure.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces that pesticide related information submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI) by the submitter, will be tranferred to SRA in accordance with 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3) and 2.308(i)(2). Systems Research and Applications Corporation has been awarded multiple contracts to perform work for OPP, and access to this information will enable SRA to fulfill the obligations of the contract.
Systems Research and Applications Corporation will be given access to this information on or before May 17, 2004.
Erik R. Johnson, FIFRA Security Officer, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-7248; e-mail address:
This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Under Contract No. 68-W-99-38, the purpose of the work assignment is to provide the OPP with the contractor resources needed to support EPA's efforts to conduct risk assessments for its critical/priority systems and applications. The risk assessment will generally be consistent with the methodology developed by Science Application International Corporation. The role of the Contractor is to provide research, analytical, and technical expertise to the Work Assignment Manager (WAM) in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the project.
This contract involves no subcontractors.
The OPP has determined that the contract described in this document involves work that is being conducted in connection with FIFRA, in that pesticide chemicals will be the subject of certain evaluations to be made under this contract. These evaluations may be used in subsequent regulatory decisions under FIFRA.
Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment. The information has been submitted to EPA under sections 3, 4, 6, and 7 of FIFRA and under sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA.
In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3), the contract with SRA, prohibits use of the information for any purpose not specified in this contract; prohibits disclosure of the information to a third party without prior written approval from the Agency; and requires that each official and employee of the contractor sign an agreement to protect the information from unauthorized release and to handle it in accordance with the
Environmental protection, Business and industry, Government contracts, Government property, Security measures.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
There will be a 3-day meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) to consider and review product characterization, human health risk, ecological risk, and insect resistance management (IRM) for
The meeting will be held on June 8 to June 10, 2004, from 8:30 a.m. to approximately 5 p.m, eastern daylight time.
The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn Arlington, 4610 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203. The telephone number for the Holiday Inn Arlington is (703) 243-9800.
Paul Lewis, DFO, Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-8450; fax number: 202-564-8382; e-mail addresses:
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FIFRA, and the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO listed under
1.
2.
EPA's position paper, charge/questions to FIFRA SAP, FIFRA SAP composition (i.e., members and consultants for this meeting) and the meeting agenda will be available as soon as possible, but no later than late May 2004. In addition, the Agency may provide additional background documents as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the FIFRA SAP Internet Home Page at
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Certain types of information will not be placed in 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
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 in hard copy that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
You may submit comments electronically (preferred), through hand delivery/courier, or by mail. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
5. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document.
6. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number OPP-2004-0146 in the subject line on the first page of your request.
1.
2.
3.
4.
The criteria for selecting scientists to serve on the FIFRA SAP are that these persons be recognized scientists—experts in their fields; that they be as impartial and objective as possible; that they represent an array of backgrounds and perspectives (within their disciplines); have no financial conflict of interest; have not previously been involved with the scientific peer review of the issue(s) presented; and that they be available to participate fully in the review, which will be conducted over a relatively short-time frame. Nominees will be asked to attend the public meetings and to participate in the discussion of key issues and assumptions at these meetings. Finally, they will be asked to review and to help finalize the meeting minutes.
If a FIFRA SAP nominee is considered to assist in a review by the FIFRA SAP for a particular session, the nominee is subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634, Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA in 5 CFR part 6401. As such, the FIFRA SAP nominee is required to submit a Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA Form 3110-485-02) which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the nominee's employment, stocks, and bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. The EPA will evaluate the nominee's financial disclosure form to assess that there are no financial conflicts of interest, the appearance of impartiality and should not have been involved with the development of the documents under consideration (including previous scientific peer review) before the nominee is considered to serve on the FIFRA SAP. The Agency will review all nominations with final selection of ad hoc members being a discretionary function of the Agency. Selected FIFRA SAP members will be hired as a Special Government Employee. FIFRA SAP members participating at this meeting will be posted on the FIFRA SAP web site or may be obtained by contacting the PIRIB at the address or telephone number listed in Unit I. In order to have the collective breadth of experience needed to address the Agency's charge, the Agency anticipates greater than 10 ad hoc scientists will be selected for this meeting.
Amendments to FIFRA enacted November 28, 1975 (7 U.S.C. 136w(d)), include a requirement under section 25(d) of FIFRA that notices of intent to cancel or reclassify pesticide regulations pursuant to section 6(b)(2) of FIFRA, as well as proposed and final forms of rulemaking pursuant to section 25(a) of FIFRA, be submitted to a SAP prior to being made public or issued to a registrant. In accordance with section 25(d) of FIFRA, the FIFRA SAP is to have an opportunity to comment on the health and environmental impact of such actions. The FIFRA SAP also shall make comments, evaluations, and recommendations for operating guidelines to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. Members are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of providing expert comments as to the impact on health and the environment of regulatory actions under sections 6(b) and 25(a) of FIFRA. The Deputy Administrator appoints seven individuals to serve on the FIFRA SAP for staggered terms of 4 years, based on recommendations from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.
Section 104 of FQPA (Public Law 104-170) established the FQPA Science Review Board (SRB). These scientists shall be available to the FIFRA SAP on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews conducted by the FIFRA SAP.
The FIFRA SAP will meet to consider and review product characterization, human health risk, ecological risk, and IRM for
In September 2001, the Agency completed a reassessment of the PIP Cry1Ac produced in cotton, known as BollGard cotton. At that time, the Agency required the registrant, Monsanto Company, to submit data on whether alternative host plants for the cotton bollworm assisted in providing an adequate insect refuge to support an IRM plan allowing 95% BollGard cotton and a 5% external, unsprayed structured non-
This meeting of the FIFRA SAP will also review the scientific issues being considered by the Agency pertaining to IRM of the PIP products BollGard, BollGard II, and WideStrike, including assessing the Agency's review of several specific issues related to cotton bollworm resistance management: (1) Utilization of alternate hosts as natural refuge, (2) insecticidal overspray impacts, and (3) north-south reverse migration. The Panel will be charged with assessing the Agency's assessment of the aforementioned data submitted to support these registrations and completing a report on the assessment. The Agency will use the Panel's recommendations as it considers continuation of the 5% external, unsprayed refuge option for cotton bollworm.
The FIFRA SAP will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its recommendations to the Agency in approximately 60 days after the meeting. The meeting minutes will be posted on the FIFRA SAP web site or may be obtained by contacting the PIRIB at the address or telephone number listed in Unit I.
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the availability of risk assessments that were developed as part of EPA's process for making pesticide Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) and tolerance reassessments consistent with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). These risk assessments are the human health and environmental fate and effects risk assessments and related documents for the broad-spectrum herbicide cycloate (S-Ethyl cyclohexylethylthiocarbamate), registered for the control of both annual grasses and broadleaf weeds on garden beets, spinach, sugar beets, and proposed for Swiss chard. This notice also starts a 60-day public comment period for the risk assessments. By allowing access and opportunity for comment on the risk assessments, EPA is seeking to strengthen stakeholder involvement and help ensure decisions made under FQPA are transparent and based on the best available information.
Comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number OPP-2004-0077, must be received on or before July 12, 2004.
Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
Carmen Rodia, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 306-0327; fax number: (703) 308-8041; e-mail address:
This action is directed to the public in general, nevertheless, a wide range of stakeholders will be interested in obtaining the risk assessments for cycloate, including environmental, human health and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the use of pesticides on food. Since other entities also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Certain types of information will not be placed in EPA's Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date and
EPA is making available to the public the risk assessments that have been developed as part of the Agency's public participation process for tolerance reassessment and reregistration. During the next 60 days, EPA will accept comments on the human health and environmental fate and effects risk assessments and other related documents for cycloate, available in the individual pesticide docket. Cycloate is used only on garden beets, spinach, and sugar beets and is proposed for use on Swiss chard.
EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been using a pilot public participation process for the assessment of organophosphate pesticides since August 1998. In considering how to accomplish the movement from the current pilot being used for the organophosphate pesticides to the public participation process that will be used in the future for non-organophosphates, such as cycloate, EPA and USDA have adopted an interim public participation process. The interim public participation process ensures public access to the Agency's risk assessments while also allowing EPA to meet its reregistration commitments. It takes into account that the risk assessment development work on these pesticides is substantially complete. The interim public participation process involves: A registrant error correction period; a period for the Agency to respond to the registrant's error correction comments; the release of the refined risk assessments and risk characterizations to the public via the docket and EPA's internet website; a significant effort on stakeholder consultations, such as meetings and conference calls; and the issuance of the risk management decision document (i.e., RED) after the consideration of issues and discussions with stakeholders. USDA plans to hold meetings and conference calls with the public (i.e., interested stakeholders such as growers, USDA Cooperative Extension Offices, commodity groups and other Federal Government agencies) to discuss any identified risks and solicit input on risk management strategies. EPA will participate in USDA's meetings and conference calls with the public. This feedback will be used to complete the risk management decisions and the RED. EPA plans to conduct a close-out conference call with interested stakeholders to describe the regulatory decisions presented in the RED. REDs for pesticides developed under the interim process will be made available for public comment.
The Agency's risk assessments and related documents for cycloate are included in the public version of the official record. As additional comments, reviews and risk assessment modifications become available, these will also be docketed. The cycloate risk assessments reflect only the work and analysis conducted as of the time they were produced and it is appropriate that, as new information becomes available and/or additional analyses are performed, the conclusions they contain may change.
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; correction.
EPA issued a notice in the
Patrick Dobak, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8180; e-mail address:
The Agency included in the January 28, 2004 cancellation order a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
The original cancellation order for uses of pesticide products containing dimethoate on various commodities was published in the
1. This correction announces cancellation, as requested by the dimethoate technical registrants, of the following crop uses from all dimethoate technical products registered under section 3 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA): Apples, broccoli raab, cabbage, collards, fennel, grapes, head lettuce, lespedeza, spinach, tomatillo, and trefoil. The cancellations of the cabbage and collards uses are effective as of May 12, 2004. The cancellations of the other uses became effective January 28, 2004.
2. The manufacturing-use product registrations for which cancellation was requested are identified in Table 1 of this notice. The registrants will be allowed until January 27, 2005, to exhaust existing stocks of these products with labels that still include the cancelled uses identified in this notice. The Agency reserves the right to propose shorter existing stocks time periods for dimethoate products in future
Pursuant to section 6(f) of FIFRA, EPA approves the requested cancellations of the dimethoate uses on apples, broccoli raab, cabbage, collards, fennel, grapes, head lettuce, lespedeza, spinach, tomatillo, and trefoil for the product registrations identified in Table 1 of this notice. In addition, also pursuant to section 6(f) of FIFRA. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of this notice in a manner inconsistent with any of the Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks in Unit IV., will be considered a violation of FIFRA.
EPA is not at this time proposing to revoke existing tolerances issued pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for residues of dimethoate in or on apples, broccoli raab, cabbage, collards, fennel, grapes, head lettuce, lespedeza, spinach, tomatillo, and trefoil. This is because registrations authorizing such uses are still in effect for certain end-use products containing dimethoate.
For purposes of this cancellation order, the term “existing stocks” is defined, pursuant to EPA's existing stocks policy of (June 26, 1991) (56 FR 29362), as those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which have been packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. The existing stocks provisions of this cancellation order are as follows:
1.
i. Registrants identified in Table 1 of this notice may sell and distribute existing stocks of their own products until January 27, 2005.
ii. Any person may ship such existing stocks for the purpose of export consistent with section 17 of FIFRA or for proper disposal in accordance with applicable law.
2.
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities.
Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP-2004-0118, must be received on or before June 11, 2004.
Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
Bipin Gandhi, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8380; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS 111)
• Animal production (NAICS 112)
• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408(d)(3). The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material, or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the findings reflected EPA's position and not the position of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.
EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP 4E6820) from Cognis Corporation, 4900 Este Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45232, proposing pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for isodecyl alcohol ethoxylated (2-8 moles) polymer with chloromethyl oxirane in or on all raw agricultural commodities when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.960 (polymers). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
1.
2.
Where it can be determined that an inert ingredient meets the definition of an exempt or low-risk polymer (40 CFR 723.250) then the production of data is generally not required by EPA to establish a tolerance or the exemption from a tolerance. Cognis Corporation asserts that the data and information provided below are sufficient to establish the activity and toxicity associated with isodecyl alcohol ethoxylated (2-8 moles) polymer with chloromethyl oxirane as an inert ingredient when applied to growing crops or raw agricultural commodities.
Further, in the case of chemical substances described as polymers, EPA has established criteria, which when they are met or exceeded, are considered low-risk. These criteria are described in 40 CFR 723.250, and identify polymers that are relatively unreactive, stable, and typically are not absorbed when compared to other chemical substances including some polymers.
The criteria described in 40 CFR 723.250, and addressed below, will generally exclude polymer chemicals that are not well-known and understood, and potentially present a significant risk of adverse effects. Therefore, the polymers that meet or exceed these criteria can be considered minimal or negligible risk.
Isodecyl alcohol ethoxylated (2-8 moles) polymer with chloromethyl oxirane conforms to the definition of a low-risk polymer as described in 40 CFR 723.250 as presented below.
a. Isodecyl alcohol ethoxylated (2-8 moles) polymer with chloromethyl oxirane is not a cationic polymer, nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.
b. Isodecyl alcohol ethoxylated (2-8 moles) polymer with chloromethyl oxirane contains as the integral part of its composition the atomic elements hydrogen, oxygen and carbon.
c. Isodecyl alcohol ethoxylated (2-8 moles) polymer with chloromethyl oxirane does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any elements other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
d. Isodecyl alcohol ethoxylated (2-8 moles) polymer with chloromethyl oxirane is not designed nor reasonably anticipated to substantially depolymerize, degrade or decompose.
e. Isodecyl alcohol ethoxylated (2-8 moles) polymer with chloromethyl oxirane is manufactured from monomers that are listed in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Chemical Substance Inventory, or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
f. Isodecyl alcohol ethoxylated (2-8 moles) polymer with chloromethyl oxirane is not a water absorbing polymer.
g. Isodecyl alcohol ethoxylated (2-8 moles) polymer with chloromethyl oxirane does not contain any reactive functional groups.
h. The minimum number-average molecular weight of isodecyl alcohol ethoxylated (2-8 moles) polymer with chloromethyl oxirane is approximately 2,500 daltons. Substances with molecular weights greater than 400 Daltons are generally not absorbed through the intact skin, and substances with molecular weights greater than 1,000 daltons are generally not absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Chemicals not absorbed through the skin or GI tract are incapable of eliciting a toxic response via these routes of exposure.
i. Isodecyl alcohol ethoxylated (2-8 moles) polymer with chloromethyl oxirane contains less than 10% oligomeric material below molecular weight of 500 daltons and less than 25% oligomeric material below 1,000 daltons.
1.
2.
At this time, there is no information to indicate that any toxic effects produced by isodecyl alcohol ethoxylated (2-8 moles) polymer with chloromethyl oxirane would be cumulative with those of any other chemical. Given the compound's categorization as a low-risk polymer, and its proposed use in pesticide formulations, there is no expectation of increased risk due to cumulative exposure.
1.
2.
There are no CODEX maximum residue levels established for residues of isodecyl alcohol ethoxylated (2-8 moles) polymer with chloromethyl oxirane in or on crops or commodities at this time.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice and request for public comment.
Notice is hereby given of a proposed settlement under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), concerning property in the vicinity of the Mineral County Memorial Airport, Creede, Colorado (Property). The proposed settlement is a prospective purchaser agreement with John Parker, Navajo Development LLC, Navajo Development Company, Inc. and the Mineral County Fairgrounds Associations (MCFA) (hereinafter, the “Settling Respondents”), which would resolve the CERCLA liability of the Settling Respondents with respect to the Property. Pursuant to the settlement, Settling Respondents will provide EPA and the State access, perform cleanup activities on the Property pursuant to plans approved by the Colorado Voluntary Cleanup Program and grant an environmental covenant that will place land use controls on the Property.
The public may submit comments to EPA on or before June 11, 2004.
The proposed settlement is available for inspection at the EPA Region 8 Superfund Record Center, 999 18th Street, 5th Floor, North Tower, Denver, Colorado, (303) 312-6473. Comments should be addressed to Suzanne Bohan, Enforcement Attorney, (8ENF-L), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado, 80202-2466, and should reference the Creede Airport Properties Prospective Purchaser Agreement.
Suzanne Bohan, Enforcement Attorney, at (303) 312-6925.
The Creede Airport Properties Site (Site) includes nearly 300 acres and is located just south of the City of Creede on the relatively flat flood plain of Willow Creek. The Rio Grande flows from west to east approximately one half mile south of the Property. The Site has been impacted by historical mining activities upstream of Creede.
Within the Site, there are five parcels of land; all are adjacent to or part of the Mineral County Airport in Creede. Navajo Development, LLC, and Navajo Development, Inc. has an option to purchase Parcel 1 (consisting of subparcels 1A, 1B 1C and 1D)(hereinafter, “the Property”). The Property is owned by Creede Mines, Inc. Navajo intends to purchase the Property and donate 3 subparcels (subparcels 1B, 1C and 1D) to the Mineral County Fairgrounds Association (“MCFA”), a 501(c)(3) non-profit charitable organization, simultaneous with Navajo's acquisition of Parcel 1.
After completing the cleanups on the Property, the Settling Respondents plan to redevelop this idle property for a mixture of uses which may include low income housing, commercial development and a bike trail.
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (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 the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before July 12, 2004. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet to
For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214 or via the Internet at
This form has already been approved under OMB control number 3060-0678. However, after the 60-day comment period ends for this collection, the Commission will be submitting it to the OMB as a new collection to separate the rule requirements from the form itself. This will enable the Commission to maintain and track the collection in an easier manner.
This form has already been approved under OMB control number 3060-0678. However, after the 60-day comment period ends for this collection, the Commission will be submitting it to the OMB as a new collection to separate the rule requirements from the form itself. This will enable the Commission to maintain and track the collection in an easier manner.
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (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 the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Written comments should be submitted on or before June 11, 2004. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all comments to Les Smith, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet to
For additional information or copy of the information collection(s) contact Les Smith at (202) 418-0217 or via the Internet at
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (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 the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Written Paperwork Reduction (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before July 12, 2004. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet to
For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214 or via the Internet at
Federal Election Commission.
Previously Announced Date and Time: Tuesday, May 11, 2004, 10 a.m. meeting closed to the public. This meeting was cancelled.
Tuesday, May 18, 2004 at 10 a.m.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, § 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee.
Thursday, May 20, 2004 at 10 a.m.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (ninth floor)
This meeting will be open to the public.
Correction and Approval of Minutes.
Advisory Opinion 2004-11: Streitz for U.S. Senate 2004.
Routine Administrative Matters.
Mr. Robert Biersack, Acting Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
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 26, 2004.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 6, 2004.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 7, 2004.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 6, 2004.
Office of the Deputy Regional Administration, Agency Liaison Division, General Services Administration.
Notice.
Sec. 4314(c) (1) through (5) of Title 5 U.S.C. requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more Performance Review Boards. The board
Ms. Melynda Clarke, General Services Administration, Office of the Regional Administrator, Agency Liaison Division, Washington, DC 20407; or by phone at (202) 708-5702.
As provided under section 601 of the Economy Act of 1932, amended 31 U.S.C. 1525, the General Services Administration through its Agency Liaison Division, provides various personnel management services to a number of diverse Presidential commissions, committees, boards and other agencies through reimbursable administrative support agreements. This notice is processed on behalf of the client agencies, and it supersedes all other notices in the
The members whose names appear on the Performance Review Board standing roster to serve client agencies are:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Public Health and Science; and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services and Research, Education and Economics.
Notice; correction.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture published a document in the
In the
The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn Bethesda, located at 8120 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, Maryland in the Versailles Ballroom. The Holiday Inn Bethesda is three blocks south of the National Institutes of Health and the Bethesda Naval Hospital. The hotel is located between the Bethesda Metro and the Medical Center stops. Complimentary shuttle service is available to National Institutes of Health Campus Bldg. 10, Bethesda Naval Medical Center, and nearby Medical Center Metro Station; and area airports. Paid parking is available.
Karyl Thomas Rattay (phone 202-690-7102), HHS Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of Public Health and Science, Room 738-G, 200 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20201. Additional information is available on the Internet at
Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Health and Science, HHS.
Notice.
The Office of Public Health and Science (OPHS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces a final guidance document for Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), investigators, research institutions, and other interested parties, entitled “Financial Relationships and Interests in Research Involving Human Subjects: Guidance for Human Subject Protection.” This guidance document raises points to consider in determining whether specific financial interests in research could affect the rights and welfare of human subjects, and if so, what actions could be considered to protect those subjects. This guidance applies to human subjects research conducted or supported by HHS or regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.
The guidance is effective as of the date of publication.
Office for Human Research Protections, The Tower Building, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 402-4994, facsimile (301) 402-2071.
Submit requests for single copies of the guidance document to the address identified below for further information. Requests may be made by mail or e-mail. Persons with access to the Internet also may obtain the document at
In the March 31, 2003,
The guidance recommends consideration of approaches and methods for dealing with issues of financial interests that could affect HHS human research subject protections in research subject to 45 CFR part 46 for HHS conducted or support research and 21 CFR parts 50 and 56 for FDA regulated clinical investigations. The guidance expressly does not address regulatory requirements designed to enhance data integrity and objectivity in research found in 42 CFR part 50, subpart F, 45 CFR part 94, and 21 CFR part 54.
The guidance recommends that, in particular, IRBs, institutions engaged in research, and investigators consider whether specific financial relationships create financial interests in research studies that may adversely affect the rights and welfare of subjects. The guidance poses general considerations in evaluating financial relationships and their possible effects on human subjects. More detailed points for consideration are also offered for institutions, IRBs, and investigators.
This document replaces the “HHS Draft Interim Guidance: Financial Relationships in Clinical Research: Issues for Institutions, Clinical Investigators, and IRBs to Consider when Dealing with Issues of Financial Interests and Human Subject Protection” dated January 10, 2001. This document is intended to provide guidance. It does not create or confer rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS, or the Department), including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
In this guidance document, HHS raises points to consider in determining whether specific financial interests in research affect the rights and welfare of human subjects
The PHS regulations require grantee institutions and contractors to designate one or more persons to review investigators' financial disclosure statement describing their significant financial interests and ensure that conflicting financial interests are managed, reduced, or eliminated before expenditure of funds (42 CFR 50.604(b), 45 CFR 94.4(b)). The PHS threshold for significant financial interest is $10,000 per year income or equity interests over $10,000 and 5 percent ownership in a company (42 CFR 50.603, 45 CFR 94.3). The regulations give several examples of methods for managing investigators' financial conflicts of interest (42 CFR 50.605(a), 54 CFR 94.5(a)).
Sponsors are required to disclose certain financial interests of clinical investigators to FDA in marketing approval applications under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 CFR part 54). FDA regulations at 21 CFR part 54 address requirements for the disclosure of certain financial interests held by clinical investigators. The purpose of these regulations is to provide additional information to allow FDA to assess the reliability of the clinical data (21 CFR 54.1). The FDA regulations require sponsors seeking marketing approval for products to certify that investigators do not have certain financial interests, or to disclose those interests to FDA (21 CFR 54.4). These regulations require sponsors to report (1) financial arrangements between the sponsor and the investigator whereby the value of the investigator's compensation could be influenced by the outcome of the trial; (2) any proprietary interest in the product studied held by the investigator; (3) significant payments of other sorts over $25,000 beyond costs of the study; or (4) any significant equity interest in the sponsor of a covered study (21 CFR 54.4).
Note that when the PHS regulations were promulgated, the National Science Foundation (NSF) Investigator Financial Disclosure Policy was revised to match closely the PHS regulations. The NSF conflict of interest policy appears at
Institutions and individuals involved in human subjects research may establish financial relationships related to or separate from particular research projects. Those financial relationships may create financial interests of monetary value, such as payments for services, equity interests, or intellectual property rights. A financial interest related to a research study may be a conflicting financial interest. The Department recognizes that some conflicting financial interests in research may affect the rights and welfare of human subjects. This document provides some possible approaches to consider in assuring that human subjects are adequately protected. Institutional review boards (IRBs), institutions, and investigators engaged in human subjects research each have appropriate roles in ensuring that financial interests do not compromise the protection of research subjects.
The principal target audiences include investigators, IRB members and staffs, institutions engaged in human subjects research and their officials, and other interested members of the research community.
The regulations protecting human research subjects are based on the ethical principles described in the Belmont report:
The HHS human subject protection regulations (45 CFR part 46) require that institutions performing HHS conducted or supported non-exempt research involving human subjects have the research reviewed and approved by an IRB whose goal is to help ensure that the rights and welfare of human subjects are protected. The comparable FDA regulations (21 CFR parts 50 and 56) require that FDA regulated research involving human subjects is reviewed and approved by such an IRB. Under these regulations, IRBs are responsible for, among other things, determining that:
Risks to subjects are minimized (45 CFR 46.111(a)(1), 21 CFR 56.111(a)(1));
Risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, to subjects (45 CFR 46.111(a)(2), 21 CFR 56.111(a)(2));
Selection of subjects is equitable (45 CFR 46.111(a)(3), 21 CFR 56.111(a)(3));
Informed consent will be sought from each prospective subject (45 CFR 46.111(a)(4), 21 CFR 56.111(a)(4)); and,
The possibility of coercion or undue influence is minimized (45 CFR 46.116, 21 CFR 50.20).
In addition the IRB may
Require that additional information be given to subjects “when in the IRB's judgment the information would meaningfully add to protection of the rights and welfare of subjects” (45 CFR 46.109(b), 21 CFR 56.109(b)).
For HHS conducted or supported research, the funding agency may impose additional conditions as necessary for the protection of human subjects (45 CFR 46.124).
IRBs are also responsible for ensuring that members who review research have no conflicting interest. 45 CFR 46.107(e) directly addresses conflicts of interest by requiring that “no IRB may have a member participate in the IRB's initial or continuing review of any project in which the member has a conflicting interest, except to provide information requested by the IRB.” FDA regulations include identical language at 21 CFR 56.107(e).
Concerns have grown that financial conflicts of interest in research, derived from financial relationships and the financial interests they create, may affect the rights and welfare of human subjects in research. Financial interests are not prohibited, and not all financial interests cause conflicts of interest or affect the rights and welfare of human subjects. HHS recognizes the complexity of the relationships between government, academia, industry and others, and recognizes that these relationships often legitimately include financial relationships. However, to the extent financial interests may affect the rights and welfare of human subjects in research, IRBs, institutions, and investigators need to consider what actions regarding financial interests may be necessary to protect those subjects.
In May 2000, HHS announced five initiatives to strengthen human subject protection in clinical research. One of these was to develop guidance on financial conflict of interest that would serve to further protect research participants. As part of this initiative, HHS held a conference on the topic of human subject protection and financial conflict of interest on August 15-16, 2000. A draft interim guidance document, “Financial Relationships in Clinical Research: Issues for Institutions, Clinical Investigators, and IRBs to Consider when Dealing with Issues of Financial Interests and Human Subject Protection,” based on information obtained at and subsequent to that conference was made available to the public for comment on January 10, 2001.
• The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), in a comprehensive examination of the “Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants,” in Chapter 3 recommended development of federal, institutional, and sponsor policies and guidance to ensure that research subjects' rights and welfare are protected from the effects of conflicts of interest (
• The HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has issued a series of reports examining regulation and activities of IRBs. A June 2000 OIG report addressed recruitment practices and found that about one-quarter of the surveyed IRBs consider financial arrangements with sponsors of research as part of their protocol review (
• The National Human Research Protections Advisory Committee (NHRPAC) offered advice to HHS regarding the content and finalization of the HHS Draft Interim Guidance in August, 2001 (
• In December 2001, the General Accounting Office released report 02-89 “Biomedical Research: HHS Direction Needed to Address Financial Conflicts of Interest.” The report recommended that the Secretary of Health and Human Services develop specific guidance or regulations concerning institutional financial conflicts of interest (
• A number of nongovernmental organizations recently have addressed financial interests in reports and issued new or updated policies or guidelines of varying scope and specificity, including the Association of American Universities, October 2001 (
• Two accrediting bodies for human subject protection programs have included elements addressing individual and institutional conflicts of interest in their accreditation evaluations, the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (
The Department recommends that in particular, IRBs, institutions, and investigators consider whether specific financial relationships create financial interests in research studies that may adversely affect the rights and welfare of subjects. These entities may find it useful to include the following questions in their deliberations:
What financial relationships and resulting financial interests could cause potential or actual conflicts of interest?
At what levels should those potential or actual financial conflicts of interest be managed or eliminated?
What procedures would be helpful, including those to
• Collect and evaluate information regarding financial relationships related to research,
• Determine whether those relationships potentially cause a conflict of interest, and
• Determine what actions are necessary to protect human subjects and ensure that those actions are taken?
Who should be educated regarding financial conflict of interest issues and policies?
What entity or entities would examine individual and/or institutional financial relationships and interests?
Financial interests determined to create a conflict of interest may be managed by eliminating them or mitigating their impact. A variety of methods or combinations of methods may be effective. Some methods may be implemented by institutions engaged in the conduct of research, and some methods may be implemented by IRBs or investigators. Some of those may apply before research begins, and some may apply during the conduct of the research.
In establishing and implementing methods to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects from conflicts of interest created by financial relationships of parties involved in research, the Department recommends that IRBs, institutions engaged in research, and investigators consider the questions below. Additional questions may be appropriate. The Department's intent is not to be exhaustive, but to suggest ways to examine the issues so that appropriate actions can be taken to protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects. The Department recognizes that a number of institutions currently address such issues in their consideration of financial interests of parties involved in human subject research.
Does the research involve financial relationships that could create potential or actual conflicts of interest?
• How is the research supported or financed?
• Where and by whom was the study designed?
• Where and by whom will the resulting data be analyzed?
What interests are created by the financial relationships involved in the situation?
• Do individuals or institutions receive any compensation that may be affected by the study outcome?
• Do individuals or institutions involved in the research:
Given the financial relationships involved, is the institution an appropriate site for the research?
How should financial relationships that potentially create a conflict of interest be managed?
Would the rights and welfare of human subjects be better protected by any or a combination of the following:
• Reduction of the financial interest?
• Disclosure of the financial interest to prospective subjects?
• Separation of responsibilities for financial decisions and research decisions?
• Additional oversight or monitoring of the research?
• An independent data and safety monitoring committee or similar monitoring body?
• Modification of role(s) of particular research staff or changes in location for certain research activities,
• Elimination of the financial interest?
The Department recommends that institutions engaged in HHS conducted or supported human subjects research consider whether the following actions or other actions would help ensure that financial interests do not compromise the rights and welfare of human research subjects.
Establishing the independence of institutional responsibility for research activities from the management of the institution's financial interests.
Establishing conflict of interest committees (COICs)
• Deal with individuals' or institutional financial interests in research or verify the absence of such interests and
• Address institutional financial interests in research.
Establishing criteria to determine what constitutes an institutional conflict of interest, including identifying leadership positions for which the individual's financial interests are such that they may need to be treated as institutional financial interests.
Establishing clear channels of communication between COICs and IRBs.
Establishing policies on providing information, recommendations, or findings from COIC deliberations to IRBs.
Establishing measures to foster the independence of IRBs and COICs.
Determining whether particular individuals should report financial interests to the COIC. These individuals could include IRB members and staff and appropriate officials of the institution, along with investigators, among those who report financial interests to COICs.
Establishing procedures for disclosure of institutional financial relationships to COICs.
Providing training to appropriate individuals regarding financial interest requirements.
Using independent organizations to hold or administer the institution's financial interest.
Including individuals from outside the institution in the review and oversight of financial interests in research.
Establishing policies regarding the types of financial relationships that may be held by parties involved in the research and circumstances under which those financial relationships and interests may or may not be held.
The Department recommends that institutions engaged in human subjects research and IRBs that review HHS conducted or supported human subjects research or FDA regulated human subjects research consider whether establishing policies and procedures addressing IRB member potential and actual conflicts of interest as part of overall IRB policies and procedures would help ensure that financial interests do not compromise the rights and welfare of human research subjects. As noted, 45 CFR 46.107(e) and 21 CFR 56.107(e) prohibit an IRB member with a conflicting interest in a project from participating in the IRB's initial or continuing review, except to provide information as requested by the IRB.
Policies and procedures to consider:
Reminding members of conflict of interest policies at each meeting and documenting any actions taken
Developing educational materials for IRB members to ensure their awareness of federal regulations and institutional policies regarding financial relationships and interests in human subjects research.
The Department recommends that IRBs reviewing HHS conducted or supported human subjects research or FDA regulated human subjects research consider whether the following actions, or other actions related to conduct or oversight of research, would help ensure that financial interests do not compromise the rights and welfare of human research subjects.
Actions to consider:
Determining whether methods used for management of financial interests of parties involved in the research adequately protect the rights and welfare of human subjects.
Determining whether other actions are necessary to minimize risks to subjects.
Determining the kind, amount, and level of detail of information to be provided to research subjects regarding the source of funding, funding arrangements, financial interests of parties involved in the research, and any financial interest management techniques applied.
The Department recommends that investigators conducting human subjects research consider the potential effects that a financial relationship of any kind might have on the research or on interactions with research subjects, and what actions to take.
Actions to consider:
Including information in the informed consent document, such as
• The source of funding and funding arrangements for the conduct and review of research, or
• Information about a financial arrangement of an institution or an investigator and how it is being managed.
Using special measures to modify the informed consent process when a potential or actual financial conflict exists, such as
• Having a another individual who does not have a potential or actual conflict of interest involved in the consent process, especially when a potential or actual conflict of interest could influence the tone, presentation, or type of information presented during the consent process.
• Using independent monitoring of the research.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact AnnMarie Williams at 301-594-1283, ext. 113, at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Root-Form Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Implant Abutments.” This guidance document describes a means by which root-form endosseous dental implants and endosseous dental implant abutments may comply with the requirement of special controls for class II devices. Elsewhere in this issue of the
Submit written or electronic comments on agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies on a 3.5” diskette of the guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Root-form Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Implant Abutments” to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International, and Consumer Assistance (HFZ-220), Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., Rockville, MD 20850. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to 301-443-8818. See the
Submit written comments concerning this 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
Angela Blackwell, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-480), Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850, 301-827-5283.
In the
The guidance document provides a means by which root-form endosseous dental implants and endosseous dental implant abutments may comply with the requirement of special controls for class II devices. Following the effective date of the final reclassification rule, any firm submitting a 510(k) for the devices will need to address the issues covered in the special control guidance. However, the firm need only show that its device meets the recommendations of the guidance or in some other way provides equivalent assurances of safety and effectiveness.
Also in the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the agency's current thinking on root-form endosseous dental implants and endosseous dental implant abutments. 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 the approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.
To receive “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Root-form Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Implant Abutments” by fax machine, call the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) Facts-On-Demand system at 800-899-0381 or 301-827-0111 from a touch-tone telephone. Press 1 to enter the system. At the second voice prompt, press 1 to order a document. Enter the document number (1389) followed by the pound sign (#). Follow the remaining voice prompts to complete your request.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance also may do so by using the Internet. CDRH maintains an entry on the Internet for easy access to information including text, graphics, and files that may be downloaded to a personal computer with Internet access. Updated on a regular basis, the CDRH home page includes device safety alerts,
This guidance contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 USC 3501-3520). The collections of information addressed in the guidance document have been approved by OMB in accordance with the PRA under the regulations governing premarket notification submissions (21 CFR part 807, subpart E, OMB control number 0910-0120). The labeling provisions addressed in the guidance have been approved by OMB under the PRA under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Acceptable Full-Length Donor History Questionnaire and Accompanying Materials for Use in Screening Human Donors of Blood and Blood Components” dated April 2004. The draft guidance document, when finalized, will recognize as acceptable for use by both licensed and unlicensed manufacturers that collect human blood and blood components, the full-length donor history questionnaire and accompanying materials (Version No. 1, dated April 2004) prepared by the Interorganizational Uniform Donor History Questionnaire Task Force. The full-length donor history questionnaire and accompanying materials (DHQ documents) provide a specific process for administering questions to donors of blood and blood components intended for transfusion and further manufacture to determine their eligibility to donate consistent with FDA requirements and recommendations.
Submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance by August 10, 2004, to ensure their adequate consideration in preparation of the final guidance. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Office of Communication, Training, and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling the Center for Biologics and Research Voice Information System at 1-800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800. See the
Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
Joseph L. Okrasinski, Jr., Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-827-6210.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Acceptable Full-Length Donor History Questionnaire and Accompanying Materials for Use in Screening Human Donors of Blood and Blood Components” dated April 2004. The draft guidance document, when finalized, will recognize as acceptable for use by licensed and unlicensed manufacturers that collect blood and blood components the full-length donor history questionnaire and accompanying materials (Version No. 1, dated April 2004) prepared by the Interorganizational Uniform Donor History Questionnaire Task Force. The DHQ documents provide a specific process for administering questions to donors of blood and blood components to determine their eligibility to donate consistent with FDA requirements and recommendations. FDA believes the DHQ documents will assist manufacturers in complying with the regulations under part 640 (21 CFR part 640). The guidance also advises licensed manufacturers of blood and blood components how to report the change to implement the DHQ documents described in the guidance to FDA under § 601.12 (21 CFR 601.12).
The draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirement of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collection(s) of information in §§ 601.12, 606.160, 640.3, and 640.63 cited in the guidance have been approved by OMB under OMB control numbers 0910-0338 and 0910-0116.
The draft guidance is being distributed for comment purposes only and is not intended for implementation at this time. Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance document at either
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Amendment to a notice of availability of funds.
A notice of availability of funds announced in the HRSA Preview, “Primary Health Care Programs: New Delivery Sites and New Starts in Programs Funded Under the Health Centers Consolidation Act HRSA-04-034,” was published in the
Tonya Bowers, HRSA/Bureau of Primary Health Care; 301-594-4300.
Program Information Notice 2004-02, “Requirements of Fiscal Year 2004 Funding Opportunity for Health Center New Access Point Grant Applications,” and application guidance is available at the Bureau of Primary Health Care Web page:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of meeting.
The Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee (LMRWSAC) will meet to discuss various issues relating to navigational safety on the Lower Mississippi River and related waterways. The meeting will be open to the public.
The next meeting of LMRWSAC will be held on Tuesday, May 18, 2004, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. This meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished. Requests to make oral presentations or submit written materials for distribution at the meeting should reach the Coast Guard on or before May 12, 2004. Requests to have a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee in advance of the meeting should reach the Coast Guard on or before May 4, 2004.
The meeting will be held in the Crescent City Room Suite 1830 at the World Trade Center Building, 2 Canal Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. This notice is available on the Internet at
Lieutenant (LT) Rick Paciorka, Committee Administrator, telephone (504) 589-4222, fax (504) 589-4241. Written materials and requests to make presentations should be mailed to Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Office New Orleans, Attn: LT Paciorka, 1615 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70112.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2.
(1) Introduction of committee members.
(2) Remarks by CAPT R. W. Branch, Executive Director.
(3) Approval of the November 18, 2003, minutes.
(4) Old business:
(a) Captain of the Port status report.
(b) VTS update report.
(c) PORTS update report.
(5) New business.
(6) Next meeting.
(7) Adjournment.
The meeting is open to the public. Please note that the meeting may close early if all business is finished. At the Chair's discretion, members of the public may make oral presentations during the meeting. If you would like to make an oral presentation at the meeting, please notify the Committee Administrator no later than May 12, 2004. Written material for distribution at the meeting should reach the Coast Guard no later than May 12, 2004. If you would like a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee in advance of the meeting, please submit 25 copies to the Committee Administrator no later than May 4, 2004.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact the Committee Administrator at the location indicated under Addresses as soon as possible.
Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
This document announces that a draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) regarding potential environmental impacts resulting from Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) deployment of the Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System (VACIS) is available for public review and comment. The VACIS system will be used at various ports of entry throughout the United States and Puerto Rico and is designed to provide a significant non-intrusive (gamma ray) inspection capability to assist CBP in its mission to prevent the entry of contraband into the United States. CBP will consider comments before issuing a final PEA and will then issue a draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment covering each local site affected to assess the environmental impact on local conditions.
The draft PEA will be available for public review for a 30-day period beginning on May 12, 2004. Written comments must be received by June 28, 2004.
Written comments may be submitted to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Suite 1575, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20229, Attn: Mr. Thomas Nelson. Copies of the draft PEA will be available for viewing at the above address. Copies may also be obtained by calling 202/344-2975 and by accessing the following Internet address (click on “Recent
Mr. Thomas Nelson at 202/344-2975 or at
CBP's Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System (the VACIS system) provides a means for combatting the smuggling of contraband, including implements of terrorism, into the United States. The VACIS system employs a non-intrusive inspection technique that uses low energy gamma radiation technology; it allows CBP inspectors to inspect for contraband without having to physically enter into or unload motor vehicles, containers, or other conveyances. The system is designed to augment the capabilities of the CBP inspector and enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of CBP's enforcement mission. Deployment of VACIS technology is already underway and will continue at various land and sea ports of entry throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. Given the serious nature of CBP's mission to protect the nation's borders from terrorism, it is envisioned that all ports are candidates for deployment of VACIS technology in the future.
The VACIS system consists of four configurations, described as follows:
(1) A semi-permanent version designed for inspection of motor vehicles and cargo containers at Customs ports of entry (VACIS II);
(2) A truck-mounted version designed for high-portability inspection of motor vehicles and cargo containers (Mobile VACIS);
(3) A fixed version designed specifically for installation along railroad rights of way for the inspection of railroad cars (Rail VACIS); and
(4) A Fixed Pallet Gamma Ray (FPGR) system designed for inspection of items stored on pallets and in boxes or crates (Pallet VACIS).
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and Department of the Treasury Directive 75-02 (Department of the Treasury Environmental Quality Program), CBP has prepared a draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) covering the deployment of the VACIS system.
This notice announces a 30-day period for public review of the draft PEA and a 45-day period for submitting comments to CBP, both periods commencing on the date this document is published in the
For all proposals of major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment, NEPA requires that the environmental implications of the proposal are to be explored. To meet this requirement, a Federal agency, in some instances, must produce an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that examines the environmental implications (or impacts) of a major Federal action. Under § 1508.18(a) of the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.18(a)), a major Federal action includes new and continuing agency activities. The VACIS system is a new and continuing CBP activity. In other instances, an agency will prepare an Environmental Assessment preliminary to production of either an EIS or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The effect of a FONSI is that an agency will not have to produce an EIS. In still other instances, the agency need not produce either an EA or an EIS.
Under section 8b of Treasury Directive 75-02, an EA must be prepared whenever it appears that an agency action, including the continuance of any action or program already initiated, could constitute a major action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. An EA is a concise public statement issued by a responsible federal agency that provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare either an EIS or a FONSI. Under the regulation and section 8d of Treasury Directive 75-02, an EA must describe the proposed action (or the continuing action) and the need for it; briefly describe the environmental impacts of, and alternatives to, the proposed/continued action, including mitigating measures; list the agencies and persons consulted; and provide a brief analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS or a FONSI.
A Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) is a type of EA which, with respect to a major Federal action, covers relevant environmental matters in a broad and general manner, such as a national program or policy statement. The PEA is later followed by subsequent narrower statements or analyses, such as regional program statements or site-specific statements. The draft PEA announced in this notice evaluates the potential environmental impacts resulting from deployment of the VACIS system as a nationally implemented program. Among the potential impacts evaluated are those regarding: geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, wetlands, vegetation and wildlife, air quality, noise, and radiological consequences. Also, an evaluation of alternatives to the action (deployment of the system) is included, in accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1501.2(c)).
Substantive comments received from the public and agencies during the comment period will be addressed in, and included as an Appendix to, the final PEA. Notice of issuance of the final PEA will be published in the
Should CBP determine, based on the information developed and evaluation of substantive comments received, that the design, new construction, and/or operation of VACIS system configurations 1 through 4 will not have a significant impact on the environment, CBP will prepare a FONSI. Notice of the FONSI will be published in the
After issuance of the draft PEA, review of comments received, and issuance of a final PEA, Customs will issue a draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (also known as a Supplemental Environmental Document or SED) for each affected port. Each SED will address each local
The draft PEA will be available for public review for a period of 30 days beginning on the date this document is published in the
Comments regarding the draft PEA may be submitted as set forth in the
Office of the Chief Information Officer.
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 ensure compliance to the manufactured home construction and safety standards.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2502-Pending) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-6974.
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:
HUD is requesting OMB approval to collect information in order to ensure compliance to the manufactured home construction and safety standards. Manufactured homes with attached additions or modifications must undergo an inspection to qualify for FHA insurance.
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 of availability.
In accordance with the federal Conformity Rule, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) has reviewed the air quality analysis conducted for the proposed World Trade Center Memorial and Redevelopment Plan (Proposed Action). LMDC is a subsidiary of the Empire State Development Corporation (a political subdivision and public benefit corporation of the State of New York) and, as the recipient of HUD Community Development Block Grant funds appropriated for the World Trade Center disaster recovery and rebuilding efforts, acts as the responsible entity for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401
The Proposed Action is located in Lower Manhattan, New York County, which has been designated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a moderate non-attainment area for particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter (PM
As per the requirement in 40 CFR 93.153(h)(1), this notice lists the proposed activities that are presumed to conform and the basis for these presumptions. A comprehensive presentation of the bases for the conformity presumptions is included in the report entitled “Draft Conformity Determination: World Trade Center Memorial and Redevelopment Plan.” This document is currently available for public review and comment.
Comments must be received by 5 p.m. eastern daylight time (e.d.t.) on June 11, 2004.
The Draft Conformity Determination is available at the following locations:
The Draft Conformity Determination is also available on the LMDC Web site at
William H. Kelley, Planning Project Manager, Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006; telephone: (212) 962-2300; fax: (212) 962-2431; e-mail:
The Proposed Action involves the construction of a World Trade Center Memorial and memorial-related improvements, as well as commercial, retail, museum and cultural facilities, new open space areas, new street configurations, and certain infrastructure improvements at the World Trade Center Site (WTC Site) bounded by Liberty, Church, and Vesey Streets and Route 9A and the Southern Site, which comprises two city blocks south of the WTC Site and portions of Liberty Street and Washington Street. A detailed description of the project components and the proposed construction process can be found in the FGEIS. The Draft Conformity Determination available for public review explicitly states which portions of the Proposed Action would be funded by HUD (or by another Federal agency) as well as portions that might be federally-funded (but could be funded by a non-Federal entity); however, all emissions that would be federally-funded or might be federally-funded have been included in the Draft Conformity analysis in order to present a conservative analysis. Specifically, the federally-funded portions of the Proposed Action might include cultural uses in the northwest and southwest quadrants of the WTC Site; the Memorial; public open spaces; deconstruction of the building at 130 Liberty Street (Deutsche Bank); and/or sub-grade construction at the Southern Site.
The Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990, defines a non-attainment area (NAA) as a geographic region that has been designated as not meeting one or more of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Proposed Action is located in Lower Manhattan, New York County, which has been designated by the EPA as a moderate NAA of the NAAQS for PM
A State Implementation Plan (SIP) is a state's plan on how it will meet the NAAQS under the deadlines established by the CAA. In November 1998, New York State submitted its Phase II Alternative Attainment Demonstration for Ozone, which addressed attainment of the NAAQS by 2007, and has recently submitted revisions to the SIP for the attainment of the one-hour ozone NAAQS. These SIP revisions included additional emission reductions that EPA requested to demonstrate attainment of the standard and also update the SIP estimates using a new EPA model to predict mobile source emissions (MOBILE6).
The general conformity requirements in 40 CFR part 93, subpart B, apply to those federal actions that are located in a non-attainment or maintenance area, and that are not subject to transportation conformity requirements at 40 CFR part 51, subpart T, or part 93, subpart A, where the action's direct and indirect emissions have the potential to emit one or more of the six criteria pollutants (or precursors, in the case of ozone) at emission rates equal to or exceeding the prescribed rates at 40 CFR 93.153(b), or where the action encompasses 10 percent or more of a NAA or maintenance area's total emissions inventory for that pollutant. In the case of New York City, the prescribed annual rates are 25 tons of VOCs or NO
LMDC, as the recipient of HUD Community Development Block Grant Funds, has determined that the total annual direct and indirect emissions of CO, VOCs and PM
The purpose of the conformity analysis is to establish that the federally-funded portions of the Proposed Action would conform to the New York ozone SIP, thereby demonstrating that total direct and indirect emissions of the ozone precursors, NO
For the purposes of a general conformity determination, direct and indirect emissions are defined as follows (40 CFR 93.152):
LMDC has concluded that the pollutants of concern regarding the ozone SIP conformity are the ozone precursors: NO
LMDC has reviewed the air quality analysis conducted for the Proposed Action consistent with the requirement of 40 CFR part 93, “Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans (SIP).”
LMDC has determined that maximum predicted direct and indirect emissions of CO and PM
The Proposed Action would be located in an area designated as a severe ozone non-attainment area under the 1-hour average ozone NAAQS. The direct and indirect emissions during construction of the federally-funded portions of the Proposed Action were predicted to exceed the prescribed level for severe ozone non-attainment areas (25 tons per year of NO
• The methods for estimating direct and indirect emissions from the Proposed Action meet the requirements of 40 CFR 93.159. The emissions scenario used in the air quality analysis is expected to produce the greatest off-site impacts on a daily and annual basis. Non-road engine emissions were predicted using the NONROAD model—the latest EPA model for determining emissions from non-road engines. On-road emissions were predicted using the MOBILE6 model—the latest EPA model for predicting emissions from on-road vehicles. Resuspension of road dust by on-road vehicles was estimated using the latest EPA guidance set forth in “AP-42—Compilation of Emission Factors.” All of the above emissions modeling procedures were conducted based on the latest EPA guidance.
• The federally-funded portion of the Proposed Action was predicted to result in the following emissions of NO
• Pursuant to 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A), the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has determined and documented that the total of direct and indirect VOC and NO
• The Proposed Action does not cause or contribute to any new violation, or increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation, of the standards for the pollutants addressed in 40 CFR 93.158.
• The Proposed Action does not violate any requirements or milestones in the ozone SIP.
Based on these determinations, the federally-funded portions of the Proposed Action are presumed to conform to the applicable SIPs for the project area. The activities that are presumed to conform include construction-related activities of the portions of the Proposed Action that may be federally-funded.
Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of issuance of permits for marine mammals.
The following permits were issued.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281.
Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104.
Notice is hereby given that on the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Coos Bay District Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) Meeting as identified in section 205 (f) (2) of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, Public Law 106-393 (the Act).
The BLM Coos Bay District RAC is scheduled to meet on August 24, 2004, from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. at the BLM Coos Bay District Office. The BLM Office is located at 1300 Airport Lane in North Bend, Oregon. The purpose of this meeting will be for the RAC to recommend for funding for Title II projects, as identified under Public Law 106-393. There will be an opportunity for the public to address the RAC at approximately 11 a.m. at this meeting. The RAC may also meet on August 25, 2004, for the same purpose. The need for this meeting will be dependent upon the progress made in making recommendations at the August 24th meeting. The scheduled meeting time and location for the August 25th meeting will be the same as for the meeting scheduled on August 24th.
Sue Richardson, District Manager, at 756-0100 or Glenn Harkleroad, District Restoration Coordinator, at 751-4361 or
Additional information about the Coos Bay RAC agenda can be found at
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of theme study.
Notice is hereby given that the National Park Service, in cooperation with the United States Air Force is preparing a National Historic Landmark Theme Study on the history of American Aviation. The purpose of this study is to develop a historic context on the story of American Aviation and to identify and prioritize potential National Historic Landmarks.
John H. Sprinkle, Jr., Ph.D., National Register, History and Education (2280), National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW., Room NC 400, Washington, DC 20240. Telephone 202-354-2228.
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before May 1, 2004. Pursuant to § 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60 written comments concerning the significance of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service,1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, Washington DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by May 27, 2004.
A request for MOVE has been made for the following resource:
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before April 24, 2004. Pursuant to § 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60 written comments concerning the significance of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, Washington DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by May 27, 2004.
A request for REMOVAL has been made for the following resources:
A request for a MOVE has been made for the following resource:
By Notice dated December 19, 2003, and published in the
The firm plans to manufacture Sufentanil to distribute in bulk to its customers.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in Title 21, United States Code, Section 823(a) and determined that the registration of Cambrex North Brunswick, Inc. to manufacture the listed controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Cambrex North Brunswick, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. This investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, hereby orders that the application submitted by the above firm for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed is granted.
By Notice dated December 19, 2003, and published in the
The firm plans to manufacture in bulk for distribution to customers.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in Title 21, United States Code, Section 823(a) and determined that the registration of Cedarburg Pharmaceuticals, LLC, to manufacture the listed controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Cedarburg Pharmaceuticals, LLC, to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. This investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, hereby orders that the application submitted by the above firm for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed is granted.
By Notice dated December 24, 2003, and published in the
The firm plans to support its other manufacturing facility with manufacturing and analytical testing.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in Title 21, United States Code, Section 823(a) and determined that the registration of Noramco, Inc. to manufacture the listed controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Noramco, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. This investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, hereby orders that the application submitted by the above firm for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed is granted.
By Notice dated December 24, 2003, and published in the
The firm plans to support its other manufacturing facility with manufacturing and analytical testing.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in Title 21, United States Code, Section 823(a) and determined that the registration of Noramco, Inc. to manufacture the listed controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Noramco, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. This investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, hereby orders that the application submitted by the above firm for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed is granted.
By Notice dated December 24, 2003, and published in the
The firm plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances for distribution as bulk products to its customers.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in Title 21, United States Code, Section 823(a) and determined that the registration of Siegfried (USA), Inc. to manufacture the listed controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Siegfried (USA), Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. This investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, ffice of Diversion Control, hereby orders that the application submitted by the above firm for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed is granted.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 15, 2004 in response to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers at Advanced Micro Devices, C-4 Bump, Austin, Texas. These workers are part of the company's vertically integrated manufacturing of microprocessor chips at Advanced Micro Devices, Fab 25, Austin, Texas.
The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active certification issued on July 9, 2003 and which remains in effect (TA-W-50,283). Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. PRA95 helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
Submit comments on or before July 12, 2004.
Send comments to Mr. Anthony Dais, Chief, Division of USES/ALMIS, Office of Workforce Investment, Employment and Training Administration, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Rm. S-4231, Washington, DC 20210, 202-693-2784 (this is not a toll-free number) or
Mr. Olaf Bjorklund, Division of USES/ALMIS, Office of Workforce Investment, Employment and Training Administration, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Rm. S-4231, Washington, DC 20210, 202-693-2870 (this is not a toll-free number) or
Section 15 of the Wagner-Peyser Act as amended by Section 309 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-220), requires state agencies to consult with customers about the relevance of the information disseminated through the statewide employment statistics system, in order to continuously improve the system. To carry out this requirement and to increase accountability for the expenditure of grant funds for workforce information, the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on August 15, 2002, proposing that beginning in PY 2002, a condition for receiving grant funds would be a requirement that states conduct an assessment of customer satisfaction with state produced workforce information products and services and include a summary of the results of the assessment and a description of any actions to be taken to improve the system in a required annual performance report.
States were also required to provide additional narrative in the annual grant plan, describing the statewide employment statistics system and how the system supports the State's WIA/Wagner-Peyser Five Year Strategic Plan, and a description of the state's planned strategy for assessing customer satisfaction with state produced workforce information. The OMB approved the information collection for 390 days on November 5, 2002, with an expiration date of December 31, 2003. OMB has granted an extension of the expiration date to June 30, 2004.
Currently, the ETA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed continuation of the collection of information for the reporting requirements specified in the PY 2002 Workforce Information Core Products and Services Planning Guidance, issued on January 9, 2003. The same PY 2002 information collection requirements are also required by the PY 2003 Workforce Information Core Products and Services Planning Guidance, issued on October 15, 2003. Comments should:
• 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,
A copy of the proposed continuation of the ICR can be obtained by contacting the office listed above in the addressee section of this notice.
Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
National Science Foundation.
Proposed changes in the text of NSF-50: Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records; and in NSF-51, a subsystem of NSF-50.
44 U.S.C. 3101; 42 U.S.C. 1870.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the National Science Foundation is providing notice of revisions to two existing systems of records. These changes more adequately describe the systems and update the “routine uses.” All revised system notices are reprinted in their entirety.
The two revised systems are NSF-50, “Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records” and NSF-51, “Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records.” NSF-50 systems include records maintained by NSF as a result of applications for financial support and subsequent evaluation of applicants and their proposals. NSF-50 contains records on research and other proposals jointly submitted by individual applicants (principal investigators) and their home academic or other institutions. NSF makes awards to these institutions under which the individual applicants serve as principal investigators.
NSF-51 is a subsystem of the “Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records” system and contains the reviewer's name, proposal title and its identifying number, and other related material. The system enables program offices to reference specific reviewers and maintain appropriate files for use in evaluating applications for grants or other support.
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act, NSF has provided a report on the proposed systems revisions to the Office of Management and Budget; the Chairman, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; and the Chairman, House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
Address all comments concerning this notice to Leslie Jensen, National Science Foundation, Office of the General Counsel, Room 1265, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
You may submit comments by sending electronic mail (E-mail) to
Submit comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Identify all comments sent in electronic e-mail with Subject Line: Comments to proposed changes.
Leslie Jensen: (703) 292-8060.
Principal Investigator/Proposal file and Associated Records.
Files are maintained both centrally and by individual NSF offices and programs at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Persons who request or have previously requested and/or received support from the National Science Foundation, either individually or through an academic or other institution.
The names of principal investigators and other identifying information, addresses of principal investigators, demographic data, the proposal and its identifying number, supporting data from the academic institution or other applicant, proposal evaluations from peer reviewers, a review record, financial data, and other related material. Other related material may include, for example, committee or panel discussion summaries as applicable.
44 U.S.C. 3101; 42 U.S.C. 1870.
This system enables program offers to maintain appropriate files and investigatory material in evaluating applications for grants or other support. NSF employees may access the system to make decisions regarding which proposals to fund, and to carry out other authorized internal duties. Information on principal investigators is also entered in System 51, “Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records,” a subsystem of this system, to be used as a source of potential candidates to serve as reviewers as part of the merit review process, or for inclusion on a panel or advisory committee.
1. Disclosure of information from the system may be made to qualified reviewers for their opinion and evaluation of applicants and their proposals as part of the NSF application review process; and to other Government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy.
2. Information from the system may be provided to the applicant or grantee
3. Disclosure may be made to a Congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the Congressional office made at the request of that individual.
4. Information from the system may be disclosed to contractors, grantees, volunteers, experts, advisors, and other individuals who perform a service to or work on or under a contract, grant, cooperative agreement, advisory committee, committee of visitors, or other arrangement with or for the Federal government, as necessary to carry out their duties in pursuit of the purposes described above. The contractors are subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act.
5. Information from the system may be merged with other computer files in order to carry out statistical studies or otherwise assist NSF with program management, evaluation, and reporting. Disclosure may be made for this purpose to NSF contractors and collaborating researchers, other Government agencies, and qualified research institutions and their staffs. Disclosures are made only after scrutiny of research protocols and with appropriate controls. The results of such studies are statistical in nature and do not identify individuals.
6. Information from the system may be disclosed to the Department of Justice or the Office of Management and Budget for the purpose of obtaining advice on the application of the Freedom of Information Act or Privacy Act to the records.
7. Information from the system may be given to another Federal agency, a court, or a party in litigation before a court or in an administrative proceeding being conducted by a Federal agency when the Government is a party to the judicial or administrative proceeding.
8. Information from the system may be given to the Department of Justice, to the extent disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the record was collected and is relevant and necessary to litigation or anticipated litigation, in which one of the following is a party or has an interest: (a) NSF or any of its components; (b) an NSF employee in his/her official capacity; (c) an NSF employee in his/her individual capacity when the Department of Justice is representing or considering representing the employee; or (d) the United States, when NSF determines that litigation is likely to affect the Agency.
9. Records from this system may be disclosed to representatives of the General Services Administration and the National Archives and Records Administration who are conducting records management inspections under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
Various portions of the system are maintained electronically and/or in paper files.
Information can be retrieved electronically using an applicant's name or identifying number. An individual's name may be used to manually access material in alphabetized paper files.
Building is locked during non-business hours. Records are kept in rooms that are locked during non-business hours. Records maintained in electronic form are password protected.
Files are maintained in accordance with approved record retention schedules. Awarded proposals are transferred to the Federal Records Center for permanent retention. Declined proposals are destroyed five years after they are closed out.
Division Director of particular office or program maintaining such records, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
The NSF Privacy Act Officer should be contacted in accordance with procedures set forth at 45 CFR part 613.
See “Notification Procedure” above.
See “Notification Procedure” above.
Information is obtained from the principal investigator, academic institution or other applicant, peer reviewers, and others.
The portions of this system consisting of investigatory material that would identify reviewers or other persons supplying evaluations of NSF applicants and their proposals have been exempted at 45 CFR part 613 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5).
Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records.
Files are maintained centrally, and in some cases by individual NSF offices and programs, at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Reviewers who evaluate Foundation applicants and their proposals, either by submitting individual comments, or serving on review panels or site visit teams, or both.
The “Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records” system is a subsystem of the “Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records” system (NSF-50), and contains the reviewer's name, title of proposal(s) reviewed and identifying number, and other related material.
44 U.S.C. 3101; 42 U.S.C. 1870.
This system enables program offices to reference specific reviewers and maintain appropriate files for use in evaluating applications for grants or other support. NSF employees may access the system to help select reviewers as part of the merit review process, and to carry out other authorized internal duties.
Disclosure of information in this system may be made to:
1. Federal government agencies needing names of potential reviewers and specialists in particular fields.
2. Contractors, grantees, volunteers, experts, advisors, and other individuals who perform a service to or work on or under a contract, grant, cooperative agreement, advisory committee, committee of visitors, or other arrangement with or for the Federal government, as necessary to carry out their duties. The contractors are subject to the provisions of Privacy Act.
3. The Department of Justice or the Office of Management and Budget for the purpose of obtaining advice on the application of the Freedom of Information Act or Privacy Act to the records.
4. Another Federal agency, a court, or a party in litigation before a court or in
5. The Department of Justice, to the extent disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the record was collected and is relevant and necessary to litigation or anticipated litigation, in which one of the following is a party or has an interest: (a) NSF or any of its components; (b) an NSF employee in his/her capacity; (c) an NSF employee in his/her individual capacity when the Department of Justice is representing or considering representing the employee; or (d) the United States, when NSF determines that litigation is likely to affect the Agency.
6. Representatives of the General Services Administration and the National Archives and Records Administration who are conducting records management inspections under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
Various portions of the system are maintained electronically and/or in paper files.
Information can be accessed from the electronic database by addressing data contained in the database, including individual reviewer names. An individual's name may be used to manually access material in alphabetized paper files.
Building is locked during non-business hours. Records are kept in rooms that are locked during non-business hours. Records maintained in electronic form are password protected.
File is cumulative and is maintained indefinitely.
Division Director of particular office or program maintaining such records, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
The NSF Privacy Act Officer should be contacted in accordance with procedures set forth at 45 CFR part 613.
See “Notification Procedure” above.
See “Notification Procedure” above.
Information is obtained from the individual reviewers, suggestions from other reviewers, the “Principal Investigator/Proposal File” (NSF-50), other applicants for NSF funding or other members of the research community, and from NSF program officers.
The portions of this system consisting of investigatory material which would identify reviewers or other persons supplying evaluations of NSF applicants and their proposals have been exempted at 5 CFR part 613 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5).
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO) has been issued a general license by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) authorizing storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 10 CFR Part 50, and 10 CFR Part 72. This Order is being issued to ENO who has identified near term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under the general license provisions of 10 CFR Part 72. The Commission regulations at 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) and 10 CFR 73.55(h)(1) require ENO to maintain safeguards contingency plan procedures in accordance with 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix C. Specific safeguards requirements are contained in 10 CFR 73.55.
On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, utilizing large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees in order to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State, and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order to assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements.
As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and security plan requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community and other governmental agencies, the Commission has determined that certain compensatory measures are required to be implemented by licensees as prudent, interim measures, to address the current threat environment in a consistent manner throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment 1
The Commission also recognizes that some measures may not be possible or necessary, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the specific circumstances existing at ENO's facility to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe storage of spent fuel.
In order to provide assurance that licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, the Commission concludes that security measures must be embodied in an Order consistent with the established regulatory framework. ENO's general license issued pursuant to 10 CFR 72.210 shall be modified to include the requirements identified in Attachment 1 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, the Commission finds that in the circumstances described above, the
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Parts 50, 72 and 73,
A. ENO shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission regulation or license to the contrary, comply with the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set forth in their security plan. ENO shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment 1 to the Order and shall complete implementation before spent fuel is initially placed in the ISFSI.
B. 1. ENO shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission: (1) If they are unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment 1, (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in their specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. The notification shall provide the licensee's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement.
2. If ENO considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order would adversely impact the safe storage of spent fuel, ENO must notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 1 requirement in question, or a schedule for modifying the facility to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, ENO must supplement its response to Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications as required in Condition B.1.
C. 1. ENO shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, submit to the Commission, a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in Attachment 1.
2. ENO shall report to the Commission when they have achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1.
D. Notwithstanding the provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5), all measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise.
ENO's responses to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition, submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21.
The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by ENO of good cause.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, ENO must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address; to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region I; and to the licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the licensee. Because of potential disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission, either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101, or by e-mail to
If a hearing is requested by ENO or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such a hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), ENO may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) has received an application, dated April 9, 2004, from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), filed pursuant to Sections 104c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR Part 50.51(a), to renew Operating License No. TR-5 for the National Institute of Standards and Technology Reactor (the NBSR). NIST requested renewal of the license to authorize operation of the facility for an additional 20-year period beyond the period specified in the current operating license. The current operating license for the NBSR (TR-5) expires on May 16, 2004. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.109(a), NIST's application for renewal was at least 30 days prior to the expiration of an existing license, and therefore the existing license will not be deemed to have expired until the application has been finally determined. The reactor is located on the NIST campus in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The acceptability of the tendered application for docketing, and other matters including an opportunity to request for a hearing, will be the subject of subsequent
Copies of the application are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, or electronically from the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room under accession number ML041120161. The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible from the NRC Web site at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of STP Nuclear Operating Company acting on behalf of itself and for Texas Genco, LP, the City Public Service Board of San Antonio (CPS), AEP Texas Central Company, and the City of Austin, Texas, (the licensee) to withdraw its March 4, 2004, application for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-80 for the South Texas Project (STP), Unit 2, located in Matagorda County, Texas.
The proposed amendment would have revised the Technical Specifications to allow STP, Unit 2 to change modes with standby diesel generator 22 inoperable.
The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated March 4, 2004, and the licensee's letter dated April 29, 2004, which withdrew the application for license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has been issued a general license by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) authorizing storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 10 CFR part 50, and 10 CFR part 72. This Order is being issued to TVA who has identified near term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under the general license provisions of 10 CFR part 72. The Commission regulations at 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) and 10 CFR 73.55(h)(1) require TVA to maintain safeguards contingency plan procedures in accordance with 10 CFR part 73, appendix C. Specific safeguards requirements are contained in 10 CFR 73.55.
On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, utilizing large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees in order to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State, and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order
As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and security plan requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community and other governmental agencies, the Commission has determined that certain compensatory measures are required to be implemented by licensees as prudent, interim measures, to address the current threat environment in a consistent manner throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment 1
The Commission recognizes that some measures may not be possible or necessary, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the specific circumstances existing at TVA's facility to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe storage of spent fuel.
In order to provide assurance that licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, the Commission concludes that security measures must be embodied in an Order consistent with the established regulatory framework. TVA's general license issued pursuant to 10 CFR 72.210 shall be modified to include the requirements identified in Attachment 1 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, the Commission finds that in the circumstances described above, the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be effective immediately.
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR § 2.202 and 10 CFR parts 50, 72 and 73,
A. TVA shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission regulation or license to the contrary, comply with the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set forth in their security plan. TVA shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment 1 to the Order and shall complete implementation before spent fuel is initially placed in the ISFSI.
B. 1. TVA shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission: (1) If they are unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment 1, (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in their specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. The notification shall provide the licensee's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement.
2. If TVA considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order would adversely impact the safe storage of spent fuel, TVA must notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 1 requirement in question, or a schedule for modifying the facility to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, TVA must supplement its response to Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications as required in Condition B.1.
C. 1. TVA shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, submit to the Commission, a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in Attachment 1.
2. TVA shall report to the Commission when they have achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1.
D. Notwithstanding the provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5), all measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise.
TVA's responses to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition, submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21.
The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by TVA of good cause.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, TVA must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address; to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region II; and to the licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the licensee. Because of potential disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission, either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101, or by e-mail to
If a hearing is requested by TVA or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such a hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), TVA may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of Availability of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact.
Jill Caverly, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T8-A33, Washington DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6699 and e-mail
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of an amendment to Rio Algom Mining LLC's (Rio Algom) Source Materials License SUA-1119.
The proposed action updates the erosion control design for reclamation of uranium mill tailings at Rio Algom's Lisbon uranium mill facility near La Sal, Utah. Appendix A, Title 10, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 40, requires that former uranium mill sites provide protection for 1000 years against forces that will cause erosion or at a minimum of 200 years. Additionally, regulations require that the design should not require active maintenance. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's submittal dated September 3, 2002. License Condition 52 of Source Materials License, SUA-1119, requires Rio Algom to provide plans addressing the overall site stability. This submittal is a response to that requirement.
Pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, the NRC has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with this request. Based on this evaluation, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate for the proposed licensing action.
The EA was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with Rio Algom's Erosion Control Facility Design for surface erosion at its Lisbon uranium mill facility. This action will result in an amendment to its Source Materials License, SUA-1119, License Condition 52.
The proposed amendment to Source Materials License, SUA-1119, will amend License Condition 52F and verify that Rio Algom's design meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. Criterion 6 of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, requires that uranium mill tailings be disposed of in an area that provides reasonable assurance of control of radiological hazards and be effective for 1000 years to the extent reasonably achievable and, in any case, for at least 200 years. In order to meet this requirement, Rio Algom's design must meet the requirements of its license condition. This includes: (1) Addressing potential for erosive velocities in the soil portion of the spillway channel and rock erosion control design of the swale; (2) revising the erosion protection at the toe of the upper tailings dam; (3) considering scour; (4) reviewing rock apron design; (5) address sedimentation; (6) analyzing natural tributary inflows to the diversion channel; (7) reviewing riprap thickness; (8) analyzing strear stress effects; (9) analyzing rock durability and tests bedrock competency; and (10) devising an inspection for the filter and riprap placement.
The EA evaluated the potential impacts of construction and placement of runoff control features including placement of rock riprap. In addition, the EA addressed environmental impacts for rock placement on the top and side slopes of the tailings impoundment, diversion channels, and transition aprons. Construction impacts due to placement and transport of the rock were also considered.
The proposed action is necessary because the regulations and Rio Algom's license require that an engineered barrier be placed over tailings and byproduct material and that the design meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A.
Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC has prepared the EA, summarized above. The staff has determined that no significant environmental impacts are expected when the erosion cover is constructed. There will be no significant or additional impacts to the surface features because the erosions protection will be placed on areas where tailings have been covered with an engineered soil barrier and will therefore have no significant effect to wildlife. In addition, the licensee will stabilize areas adjacent to the tailings impoundment where run-off from higher drainage areas enters onto the impoundment but no significant environmental impacts will result from this action.
The proposed NRC approval of the action when combined with known effects on resource areas at the site, including further site remediation, is not anticipated to result in any cumulative impacts at the sites. Therefore, the NRC staff has concluded that there will be no significant environmental impacts on the quality of
The EA for this proposed action, as well as the licensee's request, as supplemented, are available electronically for public inspection in the NRC's Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Finding of no significant impact and environmental assessment.
Don Stout, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T8-A33, Washington DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-5269 and e-mail
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of an amendment to NRC Materials License SNM-1107 to allow a one-time exemption that extends the SNM physical inventory completion date by four days at the Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC, (WEC) facility in Columbia, South Carolina, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this action. Based upon the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared.
The WEC, Nuclear Fuel, Columbia Fuel Fabrication Facility fabricates nuclear fuel assemblies containing low-enriched uranium oxide for use in commercial nuclear power reactors. The NRC staff has received an exemption request (Ref. 1), dated November 21, 2003, to exempt WEC from 10 CFR 74.31(c)(5), requirements that SNM physical inventories be performed at least every 12 months. In Section 5.3.1 of the licensee's NRC approved Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan (FNMC), WEC specifies an annual SNM physical inventory will be performed at an interval of at least every 12 months, plus or minus 30 days. Because the last SNM physical inventory was performed on April 18, 2003, the next physical inventory is required to be completed no later than May 18, 2004. WEC requested a license amendment to allow a one-time exemption that extends the SNM physical inventory completion date to May 22, 2004. The purpose of this document is to assess the environmental consequences of the proposed exemption.
The purpose of this EA is to assess the environmental impacts of the exemption request. It does not approve the request. This EA is limited to the extension of the SNM physical inventory date to May 22, 2004, at the Columbia facility. The existing conditions and operations for the Columbia facility were evaluated by the NRC for environmental impacts in a July 12, 1995, EA related to the renewal of the WEC license (Ref. 2). This assessment will determine whether to issue a FONSI or to prepare an EIS. Should the NRC issue a FONSI, no EIS will be prepared.
The proposed action is to grant an exemption from the requirements in 10 CFR 74.31(c)(5) and allow WEC to extend the completion date of the annual SNM physical inventory to May 22, 2004.
WEC is currently manufacturing nuclear fuel at the Columbia, South Carolina facility. It is requesting an extension from May 18, 2004, to May 22, 2004, to complete its annual SNM physical inventory. This one-time extension expires on May 26, 2004. WEC is requesting this extension because it has a high production workload for the month of April due to the seasonal refueling activities. WEC has indicated that the high production workload may cause significant challenges to achieving a successful and complete physical inventory.
The alternatives available to the NRC are:
1. Approve the exemption request as submitted;
2. No action (
The affected environment for Alternatives 1 and 2 is the WEC site. A full description of the site and its characteristics is given in the 1995 EA related to the renewal of the WEC license (Ref.1). This plant is located in the central part of South Carolina in Richland County, approximately 8 miles southeast of Columbia. The plant is set back approximately 1800 feet from the nearest roadway on a plot of approximately 1,156 acres near the Congaree River. The site is bounded to the north by Highway 48 (Bluff Road), and by the Congaree River to the south. The area adjacent to the site consists primarily of forest.
A full description of the effluent monitoring program at the site is provided in the 1995 EA related to the renewal of the WEC license (Ref. 2). The WEC-Columbia facility conducts effluent and environmental monitoring programs to evaluate potential public health impacts and comply with the NRC effluent and environmental monitoring requirements. The effluent program monitors the airborne, liquid,
Airborne, liquid, and solid effluent streams that contain radioactive material generated at the Columbia facility are monitored to ensure compliance with NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20. The results of effluent monitoring are reported on a semi-annual basis to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 70.59.
Airborne and liquid effluents are also monitored for nonradiological constituents in accordance with State discharge permits. For the purpose of this EA, the State of South Carolina is expected to set limits on effluents under its regulatory control that are protective of health and safety and the local environment.
The proposed action will not result in the release of any chemical or radiological constituents to the environment. In addition, the proposed action will not cause any adverse impacts to local land use, biotic resources, or cultural resources.
Under the no action alternative, WEC would have to complete the annual SNM physical inventory by May 18, 2004. In order to complete the physical inventory by May 18, 2004, WEC would encounter significant challenges in achieving a successful and complete physical inventory due to a high production workload and the sharing of common resources.
Based on its review, the NRC staff has concluded that the environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are insignificant. Thus, the staff considers that Alternative 1 is the appropriate alternative for selection.
On April 27, 2004, the NRC staff contacted the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Conservation (DHEC) concerning this request. Based on information provided by the NRC, concerning the exemption allowing the extension of the SNM physical inventory completion date, DHEC did not object to granting this exemption and the EA.
The NRC staff has determined that consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required because the proposed action is administrative in nature and will not affect listed species or critical habitat.
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity that has potential to cause effect on historic properties because it is administrative in nature. Therefore, consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is not required.
Unless otherwise noted, a copy of this document and the references listed below will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at
1. Westinghouse Electric Company (WEC), LLC, Letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Request for One-Time Exemption to Annual SNM Physical Inventory Frequency Requirement of Fundamental Nuclear Material Control (FNMC) Plan—License Number SNM-1107, Docket 70-1151, November 21, 2003,” ADAMS No. ML033320331.
2. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), July 1995, “Environmental Assessment for Renewal of Special Nuclear Material License SNM-1107.”
Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC staff has considered the environmental consequences of amending WEC Materials License SNM-1107 to exempt WEC from the annual SNM physical inventory requirement in 10 CFR 74.31(c)(5) and extend the completion date. On the basis of this assessment, the Commission has concluded that environmental impacts associated with the proposed action would not be significant and the Commission is making a finding of no significant impact. Accordingly, preparation of an EIS is not warranted.
For further details, see the references listed above. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ACNW will hold a Planning and Procedures meeting on May 25, 2004, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of ACNW, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW activities and related matters. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Howard J. Larson (Telephone: 301/415-6805) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (e.t.) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (e.t.). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named
According to the provisions of section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given that meetings of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee will be held on:
The meetings will start at 10:00 a.m. and will be held in Room 5A06A, Office of Personnel Management Building, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.
The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee is composed of a Chair, five representatives from labor unions holding exclusive bargaining rights for Federal blue-collar employees, and five representatives from Federal agencies. Entitlement to membership on the Committee is provided for in 5 U.S.C. 5347.
The Committee's primary responsibility is to review the Prevailing Rate System and other matters pertinent to establishing prevailing rates under subchapter IV, chapter 53, 5 U.S.C., as amended, and from time to time advise the Office of Personnel Management.
These scheduled meetings will start in open session with both labor and management representatives attending. During the meetings either the labor members or the management members may caucus separately with the Chair to devise strategy and formulate positions. Premature disclosure of the matters discussed in these caucuses would unacceptably impair the ability of the Committee to reach a consensus on the matters being considered and would disrupt substantially the disposition of its business. Therefore, these caucuses will be closed to the public because of a determination made by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management under the provisions of section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B). These caucuses may, depending on the issues involved, constitute a substantial portion of a meeting.
Annually, the Chair compiles a report of pay issues discussed and concluded recommendations. These reports are available to the public, upon written request to the Committee's Secretary.
The public is invited to submit material in writing to the Chair on Federal Wage System pay matters felt to be deserving of the Committee's attention. Additional information on this meeting may be obtained by contacting the Committee's Secretary, Office of Personnel Management, Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee, Room 5538, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415 (202) 606-1500.
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice of computer matching program.
In accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act, as amended, the notice announces a computer matching program that OPM plans to conduct with CMS.
OPM will file a report of the subject matching program with the Committee on governmental Affairs of the Senate, the Committee on Government reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The matching program will be effective 40 days after the
Interested parties may comment on this notice by writing to Maurice O. Duckett, Assistant Director for RIS Support Services Programs, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E. Street, NW., Room 1312, Washington, DC 20415. All comments received will be available for public inspection at this address.
Contact Marc Flaster, Chief, Management Information Branch 1900 E Street, NW., Room 4316 Washington, DC 20415, telephone number (202) 606-2115.
The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) by establishing the conditions under which computer matching involving the Federal government could be performed and adding certain protections for individuals applying for and receiving Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for such individuals.
The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other Federal, State, or local government records. Among other things, it requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs to:
(1) Negotiate written agreements with the other agency or agencies participating in the matching programs;
(2) Obtain the approval of the match agreement by the Data Integrity Branch (DIB) of the participating Federal agencies.;
(3) Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;
(4) Notify applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching; and
(5) Verify match findings before reducing suspending, terminating or denying an individual's benefits or payments.
We have taken action to ensure that all of OPM's computer matching programs with the requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended.
OPM and CMS.
The purpose of this agreement is to establish the conditions under which OPM and CMS can implement the terms and provisions of CMS's Employer Voluntary Data Sharing Agreement, which will also include the Internal Revenue Service/Social Security Administration/CMS Data Match Questionnaire process. Under the terms of the matching agreement, OPM agrees to provide coverage eligibility data to CMS ad furthermore CMS agrees to consider our compliance with this agreement to constitute satisfaction of its statutory obligations. CMS agrees to provide coverage eligibility data to OPM on active as well as inactive employees and their spouses for whom the employer provides group health coverage. These disclosures will provide CMS with information for use in determining the extent to which any Medicare beneficiary is covered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Programs (FEHBP). These disclosures will enable CMS to identify instances where Medicare is the secondary payer for working, nonPostal, Federal civilian employees and their spouses who have primary insurance because of their Federal employment or because of their spouse's Federal employment. This computer-matching program will result in systematic, improved coordination of benefits between Medicare and FEHBP through data sharing.
The provisions of the Social Security Act known as the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) laws, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b), shift from Medicare to certain group health plans (GHPs) primary payment responsibility for certain Medicare beneficiaries to the extent that the medical expenses of those Medicare beneficiaries are also covered by a GHP. The MSP provisions are found at the above citation, as amended, excepting 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(2)(A)(ii) and the regulations related to the statute, as amended and currently found at 42 CFR 411.20-.37, 411.100-.130, 411.160-.175, and 411.200-.206.
OPM will disclose information from two major records systems, the Central Personnel Data File, last published as OPM/GOV-1, General Personnel Records System (65 FR 24732, April 27, 2000), and the annuity roll systems, last published as OPM/Central-1, Civil Service Retirement and Insurance Records, (64 FR 54930, October 8, 1999, as amended May 3, 2000 (65 FR 25775). CMS will use OPM's submission of data to update the CMS Common Working File, System Number 09-70-0526, published at 53 FR 52792, December 29, 1988. CMS will further use its Enrollment Data Base, found in System No. 09-70-0502 to determine Medicare eligibility for the records exchanged between the two agencies.
The personal privacy of the individuals whose names are included in the tapes is protected by strict adherence to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB's “Guidance Interpreting the Provisions of Public Law 100-503, the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988.” Access to the records used in the data exchange is restricted to only those authorized employees and officials who need it to perform their official duties. Records matched or created will be stored in an area that is physically safe from access by unauthorized personnel during duty hours as well as nonduty hours or when not in use. Records used in this exchange and any records created by this exchange will be processed under the immediate supervision and control of authorized personnel in a manner which will protect the confidentiality of the records.
Both OPM and CMS have the right to make onsite inspections or make other provisions to ensure that adequate safeguards are being maintained by the other agency.
The matching program shall become effective upon the signing of the agreement by both parties to the agreement and approval of the agreement by the Data Integrity Boards of the respective agencies, but no sooner than 40 days after notice of this matching program is sent to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget or 30 days after publication of this notice in the
On May 3, 2004, Celanese AG, a Federal Republic of Germany corporation (“Issuer”), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Board of Management (“Board”) of the Issuer unanimously approved a resolution on April 27, 2004 to withdraw the Issuer's Security from listing on the NYSE. The Board states that the following reasons factored into its decision to withdraw the Security: (1) The acquisition by BCP Crystal Acquisition GmbH & Co. KG (“Bidder”) of 84.32% of the Security, pursuant to a Voluntary Public Takeover Offer (“Offer”) that was launched on February 2, 2004, and whose subsequent acceptance period expired on April 19, 2004; (2) the disclosure by the Bidder in the Offer Document (“Document”) relating to the Offer, which was published in Germany and filed with the Commission as an Exhibit to the Bidder's amended Form Schedule TO on February 2, 2004, that the Bidder intends to acquire 100% of the Security and seeks to effect the delisting of the Security from the NYSE as promptly as possible following the consummation of the Offer; (3) the significant decrease in average trading volume of the Security on the NYSE from 48,133 shares per day during the first three weeks of April 2003 to 7,000 shares per day during the same three weeks in 2004, and to 2,520 shares per day since the expiration of the Offer's subsequent acceptance period; (4) the disproportionately high costs and obligations associated with the continued listing of the Security on the NYSE given the limited trading volume and the Bidder's intent to acquire 100% of the Security; (5) the Security will continue to be listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange until the Issuer's shareholders resolve to revoke
The Issuer stated in its application that it has complied with the NYSE's rules governing an issuer's voluntary withdrawal of a security from listing and registration. The Issuer's application relates solely to the Security's withdrawal from listing on the NYSE and from registration under section 12(b) of the Act
Any interested person may, on or before May 28, 2004 comment on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of the NYSE and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment letters may be submitted by either of the following methods:
All submissions should refer to File Number 1-15419. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
[69 FR 25448, May 6, 2004]
Closed meeting.
450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Tuesday, May 11, 2004 at 2:30 p.m.
Cancellation of meeting.
The Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 11, 2004 has been cancelled. For further information please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.
On March 1, 2004, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (“Nasdaq”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change would revise the fee schedule for the OTCBB historical trading activity reports that are available through the OTCBB website (“OTCBB.com”). The proposal would establish that the fees that Nasdaq would charge for the Issues Summary Statistics reports and the Intra-Day Quote and Intra-Day Time and Sales Data reports of OTCBB securities are identical to the fees assessed for similar reports for Nasdaq securities that are available through the website for Nasdaq traders (“NasdaqTrader.com”). In addition, the proposed rule change would establish a new fee for an up-to-date directory listing the contact information of all OTCBB issuers.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association.
The Commission notes that the pricing structure for the historical trading activity reports available through OTCBB.com for OTCBB securities is identical to the pricing structure for similar reports available through NasdaqTrader.com for Nasdaq securities. The Commission has previously determined that the fee structure for these NasdaqTrader.com
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Nasdaq proposes to clarify that listed companies may solicit written consents from shareholders in lieu of a special shareholder meeting.
Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is
(a)-(h) No Change.
(i) Shareholder Approval
(1)-(5) No Change.
(6) Where shareholder approval is required, the minimum vote which will constitute shareholder approval shall be a majority of the total votes cast on the proposal.
(j)-(n) 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.
Nasdaq represents that the proposed rule change is designed to clarify that listed companies may solicit written consents from shareholders in lieu of a shareholder meeting.
In general, state law provides two ways in which matters may be brought before the shareholders of a corporation for their consideration. Shareholders either can take action via a meeting of shareholders (voting in person or by proxy) or by written consent of shareholders in lieu of a meeting. NASD Rule 4350 contains a number of provisions related to shareholder meetings,
Nasdaq believes that it is appropriate that its listing standards under NASD Rule 4350(i) permit action by written consent in lieu of a special meeting when such action is permitted by state and federal law. While in the past Nasdaq has interpreted NASD Rule 4350(i) to permit action by written
Nasdaq believes that annual meetings serve a useful purpose by providing shareholders with the opportunity to meet with representatives of management and the board of directors. Therefore, written consent would only be permitted in lieu of special meetings of shareholders and NASD Rule 4350(e) will continue to require that issuers hold annual meetings of shareholders.
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 result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Nasdaq neither solicited nor received written comments with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective upon filing on April 23, 2004 pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),
The Commission, consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, has waived the 30-day operative date requirement for this proposed rule change, and has determined to designate the proposed rule change as operative on April 23, 2004, the date it was submitted to the Commission, in order to implement the rule immediately for consistency in listing standards among the NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. 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 SR-NASD-2004-070. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Phlx proposes to establish its equity options payment for order flow fees imposed on the transactions of Phlx Registered Options Traders (“ROTs”) for the period from May 2004 through July 2004 for the top 120 equity options based on volume statistics from January, February and March 2004,
In its filing with the Commission, the Phlx included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it had received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
According to the Phlx, the Exchange reinstated its payment for order flow program in November, 2002.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to establish the payment for order flow fees for the top 120 equity options for trades settling on or after May 1, 2004 through July 31, 2004. The Phlx will file with the Commission a proposed rule change to address changes to the fee schedule for subsequent time periods. The Phlx is not making any other changes to its payment for order flow program at this time.
The Exchange believes that this proposal to amend its schedule of dues, fees and charges would be an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among Phlx members, and that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any inappropriate burden on competition.
The Phlx neither solicited nor received written comments on this proposal.
The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change 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 SR-Phlx-2004-28. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Small Business Administration's intentions to request approval on a new and/or currently approved information collection.
Submit comments on or before July 12, 2004.
Send all comments regarding whether this information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, whether the burden estimates are accurate, and if there are ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the collection, to Bruce Hodgman, Deputy District
Bruce Hodgman, Deputy District Director, 604-745-7200 or Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst, 202-205-7030.
Notice is hereby given that Grosvenor Special Ventures IV, L.P. (“Grosvenor”), 1808 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under section 312 of the Act and section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest, of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) rules and regulations (13 CFR 107.730 (2003)). Grosvenor proposes to provide equity financing to InphoMatch, Inc. (“InphoMatch”), 4511 Singer Court, Suite 300, Chantilly, Virginia 20152. The financing is contemplated for expansion activities and working capital.
The financing is brought within the purview of section 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because Grosvenor Venture Partners IV (QP), LP, an Associate of Grosvenor, currently owns greater than 10 percent of InphoMatch, and therefore InphoMatch is considered an Associate of Grosvenor as defined in section 107.50 of the Regulations.
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages that will require clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Pub. L. 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. The information collection packages that may be included in this notice are for new information collections, revisions to OMB-approved information collections, and extensions (no change) of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and on ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments and recommendations regarding the information collection(s) should be submitted to the OMB Desk Officer and the SSA Reports Clearance Officer. The information can be mailed and/or faxed to the individuals at the addresses and fax numbers listed below:
I. The information collections listed below are pending at SSA and will be submitted to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. Therefore, your comments should be submitted to SSA within 60 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain copies of the collection instruments by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454 or by writing to the address listed above.
1.
2.
II. The information collections listed below have been submitted to OMB for clearance. Your comments on the information collections would be most useful if received by OMB and SSA within 30 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain a copy of the OMB clearance packages by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454, or by writing to the address listed above.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice with respect to a list of countries denying fair market opportunities for products and suppliers of the United States in airport construction procurements.
Pursuant to section 533 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended (49 U.S.C. 50104), the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) has determined not to include any countries on the list of countries that deny fair market opportunities for U.S. products, suppliers, or bidders in foreign government-funded airport construction projects.
Effective May 1, 2004.
Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508.
Me
Section 533 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended by section 115 of the Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987, Pub. L. 100-223 (codified at 49 U.S.C. 50104) (“the Act”), requires USTR to decide by May 1, 2004, whether any foreign countries have denied fair market opportunities to U.S. products, suppliers, or bidders in connection with airport construction projects of $500,000 or more that are funded in whole or in part by the governments of such countries. The list of such countries must be published in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of RTCA Special Committee 159 meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 159: Global Positioning System.
The meeting will be held May 17-21, 2004, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (unless stated otherwise).
The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036.
RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Stret, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC, 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 833-9434; Web site
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 159 meeting.
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate.
Written comments should be received on or before July 12, 2004, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Larnice Mack at Internal Revenue Service, room 6407, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3179, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 98-32, Electronic Federal Tax Payments System (EFTPS) Programs for Reporting Agents.
Written comments should be received on or before July 12, 2004, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to Carol Savage at Internal Revenue Service, room 6407, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3945, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing notice of proposed rulemaking and temporary regulation, REG-209274-85 (T.D. 8033), Tax Exempt Entity Leasing (§ 1.168).
Written comments should be received on or before July 12, 2004, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Larnice Mack at Internal Revenue Service, room 6407, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3179, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 4835, Farm Rental Income and Expenses.
Written comments should be received on or before July 12, 2004, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Larnice Mack at Internal Revenue Service, room 6407, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3179, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Area 7 committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. The TAP will use citizen input to make recommendations to the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, June 1, 2004.
Mary Peterson O'Brien at 1-888-912-1227, or 206-220-6096.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, June 1, 2004 from 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time to 10:00 a.m. Pacific Time via a telephone conference call. The public is invited to make oral comments. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096, or write to Mary Peterson O'Brien, TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 or you can contact us at
The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Small Business/Self Employed—Payroll Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The TAP will be discussing issues pertaining to increasing compliance and lessoning the burden for Small Business/Self Employed individuals. Recommendations for IRS systemic changes will be developed.
The meeting will be held Thursday, June 3, 2004.
Mary O'Brien at 1-888-912-1227, or 206-220-6096.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Small Business/Self Employed—Payroll Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Thursday, June 3, 2004 from 3 p.m. EDT to 4 p.m. EDT via
The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Monday, June 7 and Tuesday, June 8, 2004.
Marisa Knispel at 1-888-912-1227 (toll-free), or 718-488-3557 (non toll-free).
An open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Monday, June 7, 2004 from 9 a.m. EDT to 5 p.m. EDT and Tuesday, June 8, 2004 from 8 a.m. EDT to 12 p.m. EDT in Portsmouth, New Hampshire at the Courtyard Marriott Hotel located at 1000 Market Street, Building Three, Portsmouth, NH 03801. Individual comments are welcomed and will be limited to 5 minutes per person. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement write Marisa Knispel, TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or, you may post comments to the Web site:
The agenda will include: Various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
Notice of Proposed New Privacy Act System of Records.
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, gives notice of a proposed new system of records entitled “Treasury/IRS 24.031—Medicare Prescription Drug Transitional Assistance Records.”
Comments must be received no later than June 11, 2004. This new system of records will be effective June 6, 2004 unless the IRS receives comments which could result in a contrary determination.
Comments should be sent to the Office of Governmental Liaison and Disclosure, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. Comments will be made available for inspection and copying upon request in the Freedom of Information Reading Room (1621), at the above address.
David Silverman, Senior Tax Law Specialist, Office of Governmental Liaison and Disclosure, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, phone 202-622-6200 (this is not a toll free number).
This is to give notice of a proposed new system of records, the Medicare Prescription Drug Transitional Assistance Records, which is subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended. The proposed system of records will contain information used to implement provisions of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-173). Section 105(e)(1) of that Act adds new section 6103(l)(19) to the Internal Revenue Code, to authorize disclosure of certain return information to the Department of Health and Human Services for purposes of assisting that agency to provide a low income transitional assistance subsidy under the Medicare Discount Drug Card program. The Act provides that the Secretary of the Treasury, upon written request from the Secretary of Health and Human Services pursuant to carrying out section 1860D-31 of the Social Security Act, shall disclose to officers, employees, and contractors of the Department of Health and Human Services with respect to a taxpayer for the applicable year:
1.(a) Whether the adjusted gross income, as modified in accordance with specifications of the Secretary of Health and Human Services for purposes of carrying out such section, of such taxpayer and, if applicable, such taxpayer's spouse, for the applicable year, exceeds the amounts specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in order to apply the 100 and 135 percent of the poverty lines under such section;
(b) Whether the return was a joint return, and (c) the applicable year, or
2. If applicable, the fact that there is no return filed for such taxpayer for the applicable year.
The system will allow the IRS to respond quickly to requests from the Secretary of Health and Human Services to disclose return information that will assist HHS to ensure compliance with eligibility requirements for the low income transitional assistance subsidy.
The new system of records report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, has been submitted to the Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Office of Management and Budget, pursuant to Appendix I to OMB Circular A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated November 30, 2000.
The proposed new system of records, entitled “Treasury/IRS 24.031—Medicare Prescription Drug Transitional Assistance Records,” is published in its entirety below.
Medicare Prescription Drug Transitional Assistance Records.
Martinsburg Computing Center,
Individuals covered by Medicare who are eligible to apply for the prescription drug transitional assistance subsidy under the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003.
Information on individuals who are Medicare beneficiaries and are eligible to apply for the prescription drug transitional assistance subsidy under the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003.
26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(19), 7801, and 7803.
This system will maintain records for disclosure to HHS under the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 to assist HHS in ensuring that applicants for prescription drug transitional assistance under section 1860D-31 of the Social Security Act meet the eligibility requirements.
Returns and return information may be disclosed only as provided by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Paper, electronic, and machine-readable media.
By name or social security number of the Medicare beneficiary.
Access controls will not be less than those provided for by
Record retention will be established in accordance with the National Archives and Records Administration Regulations, Part 1228, Subpart B—Scheduling Records.
Director, Martinsburg Computing Center.
Individuals may inquire in accordance with instructions appearing at 31 CFR Part 1, Subpart C, Appendix B. Inquiries should be addressed to the system manager listed above.
Individuals seeking access to any record contained in this system of records or seeking to contest its contents, may inquire in accordance with instructions appearing at 31 CFR Part 1, Subpart C, Appendix B. Inquiries should be addressed to the system manager listed above.
Tax information will be obtained from the Individual Masterfile (IMF), which contains information provided by taxpayers and third parties. Medicare beneficiary information and transitional assistance applicant information will be obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of the Department of Health and Human Services.
None.
In notice document 04-9840 beginning on page 23724 in the issue of Friday, April 30, 2004, make the following correction:
On page 23724, in the second column, in the seventh line from the bottom, remove the duplicated text beginning with the “
In rule document 04-10022 beginning on page 24953, in the issue of Wednesday, May 5, 2004 make the following correction:
On page 24954, in the first column, in §39.13, after amendatory instruction 2., in the third and fourth lines, “Docket 200-NM-263-AD” should read “Docket 2003-NM-263-AD”.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice of funding availability.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Awards made as cooperative agreements will entail significant HUD involvement including but not limited to the following items:
• Review and approval of proposed courses, including course materials;
• Review and approval of evaluation instruments and methodology for determining value of courses and impacts; and
• Review and approval of the geographic coverage of the training, as well as the type of training and number of courses to be provided.
1.
2.
Applicants selected for award must receive prior HUD approval to incur costs prior to the date of the grant agreement. HUD will not approve pre-award costs incurred more than ninety (90) calendar days prior to the effective date of the grant agreement. All pre-award costs are incurred at the applicant's risk and HUD has no obligation to reimburse such costs.
1.
A consortium of organizations may apply for funding under this NOFA, but one organization must be designated as the primary applicant. Furthermore, applicants may utilize in-house staff, sub-grant recipients or consultants, and networks of local organizations with requisite experience and capacity.
No specific ratio is required.
1.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
2.
a. DUNS Number. HUD will not rate and rank applications that do not include a valid Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number administered by Dun & Bradstreet.
b. Compliance with Fair Housing and Civil Rights Laws. An applicant, or any of the organizations that partner with an applicant for the provision of services in conjunction with this NOFA, must meet the following Civil Rights Threshold Requirements:
(1) With the exception of federally-recognized Indian tribes and their instrumentalities, all applicants and their subrecipients must comply with all Fair Housing and Civil Rights laws, statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders as enumerated in 24 CFR 5.105(a), as applicable. A federally-recognized Indian tribe must comply with the non-discrimination provisions enumerated at 24 CFR 1000.12, as applicable.
(2) If an applicant has been charged with a systemic violation of the Fair Housing Act alleging ongoing discrimination, is a defendant in a Fair Housing Act lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice alleging an ongoing pattern or practice of discrimination, or has received a letter of findings identifying ongoing or systemic noncompliance under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, or Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act, and if the charge, lawsuit, or letter of findings has not been resolved to HUD's satisfaction before the application deadline stated in this NOFA, the applicant may not apply for assistance under this NOFA. HUD will not rate and rank an application. HUD's decision regarding whether a charge, lawsuit, or a letter of findings has been satisfactorily resolved will be based upon whether appropriate actions have been taken to address allegations of ongoing discrimination in the policies or practices involved in the charge, lawsuit, or letter of findings. Examples of actions that may be taken prior to the application deadline to resolve the charge, lawsuit, or letter of findings, include but are not limited to:
(a) Voluntary compliance agreement signed by all parties in response to the letter of findings;
(b) HUD-approved conciliation agreement signed by all parties;
(c) Consent order or consent decree; or
(d) Judicial ruling or a HUD Administrative Law Judge's decision that exonerates the respondent of any allegation of discrimination.
c. HUD will not make an award if the applicant or the applicant's organization has been presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions from any federal department or agency.
d. Delinquent Federal Debt. Consistent with the purpose and intent of 31 U.S.C. 3720B and 28 U.S.C. 3201(e), no award of federal funds will be made to an applicant that has an outstanding delinquent federal debt unless: (1) The delinquent account is paid in full; (2) a negotiated repayment schedule is established and at least one payment is received; or (3) other arrangements satisfactory to HUD are made prior to the deadline submission date.
e. False Statements. A false statement in an application is grounds for denial or termination of an award and grounds for possible punishment as provided in 18 U.S.C. 1001.
f. Additional requirements: Agencies selected as grantees or sub-grantees must also comply with the following requirements:
(1) Salary Limitation for Consultants. Funds may not be used to pay or to provide reimbursement for payment of the salary of a consultant at more than the daily equivalent rate paid for Level IV of the Executive Schedule, unless specifically authorized by law.
(2) Accessibility. All grant recipients and subrecipients must make training facilities and services reasonably accessible to persons with a wide range of disabilities or provide other means of accommodation for the disability. In addition, counseling training must train counselors in the accessibility requirements applicable to eligible counseling activities and accessibility requirements under the Fair Housing Act, including requirements for reasonable modification.
(3) Reports. All grant recipients will be required to report to HUD on a quarterly basis, unless otherwise specified in the cooperative agreement.
(4) Code of Conduct. Entities that are subject to 24 CFR parts 84 and 85 (including most nonprofit organizations and state, local, and tribal governments or government agencies or instrumentalities that receive federal awards of financial assistance) are required to develop and maintain a written code of conduct (See Sections 84.42 and 85.36(b)(3)). The code of conduct must prohibit real and apparent conflicts of interest that may arise among employees, officers, or agents; prohibit the solicitation and acceptance of gifts or gratuities by your officers, employees and agents for their personal benefit in excess of minimal value; and outline administrative and disciplinary actions available to remedy violations of such standards. Self-recusal will not eliminate a potential or apparent conflict of interest. Prior to entering into a grant agreement with HUD, the applicant will be required to submit a copy of its code of conduct and describe the methods it will use to ensure that all officers, employees, and agents of the organization are aware of the code of conduct.
(5) Financial Management Systems. Applicants selected for funding must provide documentation demonstrating that the applicant's financial management systems satisfy the requirements in the applicable regulations at 24 CFR 84.21(b) and 85.20. Consistent with the requirements of the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 7501-07), if the applicant expended $300,000 or more in federal awards in its most recent fiscal year, such documentation must include a certification from or most recent audit by the applicant's independent public accountant that the applicant maintains internal controls over federal awards, complies with applicable laws, regulations, and contract or grant provisions, and prepares appropriate financial statements. The applicant will have at least 30 calendar days to respond to this requirement. If an applicant does not respond within the prescribed time or responds with insufficient documentation, then HUD may determine that the applicant has not met this requirement and may withdraw the grant offer.
(6) Indirect Cost Rate. Applicants must also submit documentation establishing the organization's indirect cost rate. Such documentation may consist of a certification from the most recent audit or indirect cost rate agreement by the cognizant federal agency or an independent public accountant. If the organization does not have an established indirect cost rate, the organization will be required to develop and submit an indirect cost proposal to HUD or the cognizant federal agency as applicable, for determination of an indirect cost rate that will govern an award. Applicants that do not have a previously established indirect cost rate with a federal agency shall submit an initial indirect cost rate proposal immediately after the applicant is advised that it will be offered a grant or, in any event, not later than three months after the effective date of the grant. OMB Circular A-122 sets forth the requirements to determine allowable direct and indirect costs and the preparation of indirect cost proposals. The circular can be found at
(7) Applicants are subject to a name check review process. Name checks are intended to reveal matters that significantly reflect on the applicant's management and financial integrity or if any key individuals have been convicted or are presently facing criminal charges. If the name check reveals significant adverse information that reflects on the business integrity or responsibility of the recipient or any key individual, HUD reserves the right to: (a) Deny funding or consider suspension/termination of an award immediately for cause; (b) require the removal of any key individual from association with management or implementation of the award; and (c) make appropriate provisions or revisions with respect to the method of payment or financial reporting requirements.
(8) Pre-Award Accounting System Survey. HUD may arrange for a pre-award accounting system survey of the applicant's financial management system in cases where the recommended applicant has no prior federal support, HUD program officials have reason to question whether the applicant's financial management system meets federal financial management standards, or the applicant is considered a high risk based upon past performance or financial management findings. HUD will not make an award to any applicant that does not have a financial management system that meets federal standards.
(9) Participation in HUD-Sponsored Program Evaluation. As a condition of the receipt of financial assistance under this NOFA, all successful applicants will be required to cooperate with all HUD staff or contractors performing HUD-funded research and evaluation studies.
(10) Ensuring the Participation of Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses, and Women-Owned Businesses. HUD is committed to ensuring that small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, and women-owned businesses participate fully in HUD's direct contracting and in contracting opportunities generated by HUD financial assistance. State, local and tribal governments are required by
(11) Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Persons With Limited English Proficiency (LEP). Executive Order 13166 seeks to improve access to persons with limited English proficiency by providing materials and information in languages other than English. Applicants obtaining an award from HUD must seek to improve access to program benefits and information for persons with limited English proficiency.
(12) Executive Order 13279, Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations. HUD is committed to full implementation of Executive Order 13279 in the operation of its programs.
(13) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1201
(14) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Under Section 808(e)(5) of the Fair Housing Act, HUD is obliged to affirmatively further fair housing. HUD requires the same of its funding recipients. Successful applicants will have a duty to affirmatively further fair housing opportunities for classes protected under the Fair Housing Act. Protected classes include race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, and familial status. An application must include specific steps to:
(a) Overcome the effects of impediments to fair housing choice that were identified in the jurisdiction's Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice;
(b) Remedy discrimination in housing; or
(c) Promote fair housing rights and fair housing choice.
Further, the applicant has a duty to carry out the specific activities provided in the responses to the individual rating factors that address affirmatively furthering fair housing. These requirements apply to all HUD programs announced via a NOFA.
Electronic Submission. Applications must be submitted through Grants.gov at
1. Electronic Signature. Applications submitted through Grants.gov constitute submission as electronically signed applications.
2. Grants.gov Registration. It is recommended that applicants begin completing the six “Get Started” steps no later than thirty days prior to the application due date. The “Get Started” section of the site, found at
3. Copies of the application package and related instructions for this NOFA may be downloaded from the grants.gov Web site:
1. Application Submission. Applications for this NOFA
2. Proof of Timely Submission. The Grants.gov portal will time and date stamp all applications when they are successfully transmitted to Grants.gov. The Grants.gov time and date stamp will constitute proof of timely submission of an application. The applicant will receive an e-mail notification of the time and date stamp and the Grants.gov tracking number. Applicants may not submit portions of an application through the Grants.gov portal; however, a complete, revised application may be submitted prior to the deadline date. In the event that two or more applications are received from the same applicant with the same project title, the application with the latest transmission time stamp prior to the closing due date and time will be considered for review.
3. Use the checklist below to organize the application. Unless indicated below, all applicants must submit the following:
a. DUNS number. Block 5 on Form SF-424 should be used to enter the DUNS number. See Section IV.F.1. for more information about DUNS numbers.
b. Forms. The standard forms, certifications, and assurances are listed in Appendix A of this NOFA (collectively, referred to as the “standard forms”). All of the standard forms required for this NOFA are available on the Grant.gov Web site. (Please note that forms may vary slightly in appearance on the Grants.gov Web site.) Additional information may be attached to the Project Narrative Attachment form and the Other Attachments form.
c. Nonprofit Status. Each applicant is required to submit, for itself and for any organization with which it is partnering for the purpose of this NOFA, a legible copy of the document that supports the applicant's claim to be a nonprofit organization (for example, a 501(c) letter issued by the IRS). The documentation must contain the official name, address, and telephone number of the legal authority that granted the nonprofit status. Branches or affiliates of the applicant that are part of the proposed work plan must also be nonprofit entities. These documents should be scanned and submitted electronically to HUD and attached to the Other Attachments form, which is part of the Grants.gov package. Applicants with problems scanning documents should call the contact named under agency contacts for advice and guidance related to submission of these documents to meet the established deadline date and time requirements.
d. Narrative Statements. Provide narrative statements addressing the Rating Factors in section V below. Responses to the rating factors should provide HUD with detailed quantitative and qualitative information and relevant examples regarding the housing counseling training and other work of the organization that is related to the proposed activities. These narrative statements will be the basis for evaluating the application. Applicants will submit these narrative statements in the Grants.gov application package for this NOFA under the Project
e. Prohibition Against Lobbying Activities. Applicants are subject to the provisions of Section 319 of Public Law 101-121 (approved October 23, 1989) (31 U.S.C. 1352) (the Byrd Amendment), which prohibits recipients of federal contracts, grants, or loans from using appropriated funds for lobbying the executive or legislative branches of the federal government in connection with a specific contract, grant, or loan. Applicants are required to certify, using the certification found at Appendix A to 24 CFR part 87, that applicants have not and will not use appropriated funds for any prohibited lobbying activity. In addition, applicants must disclose, using Standard Form LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, any funds other than federally appropriated funds that have been or will be used to influence federal employees, members of Congress, or congressional staff regarding specific grants or contracts. Federally recognized Indian tribes and tribally designated housing entities (TDHEs) established by federally recognized Indian tribes as a result of the exercise of a tribe's sovereign power are excluded from coverage of the Byrd Amendment, but Indian tribes and TDHEs established under only state law must comply with this requirement.
Completed applications must be submitted on or before 8 p.m. eastern time, June 14, 2004.
Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. Executive Order 13272 was issued to foster intergovernmental partnership and strengthen federalism by relying on state and local processes for the coordination and review of federal financial assistance and direct federal development. HUD implementing regulations are published in 24 CFR part 52. The order allows each state to designate an entity to perform a state review function. The official listing of State Points of Contact (SPOCs) for this review process can be found at
Ineligible Applicants. HUD will not consider an application from an ineligible applicant: See Section III.A. for information on applicants eligible for funding.
1.
Applications will be evaluated competitively according to the Factors for Award described below, and ranked against all other applicants. All applications will be scored and ranked in HUD Headquarters.
a. The factors for award, and maximum points for each factor, are outlined below. These factors will be used to evaluate applications. The maximum score is 100 for all applicants.
b. HUD may rely on other information, such as performance reports, financial status information, monitoring reports, audit reports and other information available to HUD in making score determinations under any Rating Factor.
c. All responses to the factors for award, submitted as narrative statements should be submitted under the Project Narrative Attachment form found on the Grants.gov Web site for this funding opportunity. Applicants should clearly label each narrative with the Factor Title and number related to the response.
d. Where a factor for award requests submission of a standard form, the standard form can be found in the Grants.gov electronic application package.
HUD uses responses to this rating factor to evaluate the readiness and ability of an applicant to begin the proposed work program immediately, as well as the potential for an applicant to cost-effectively and successfully implement the proposed activities indicated under Rating Factor 3.
a.
Submit the names and titles of employees, including subcontractors and consultants, who would perform the activities proposed in Rating Factor 3. Clerical staff should not be listed. Describe each employee's, subcontractor's, or consultant's relevant professional background and experience. Experience is relevant if it corresponds directly to projects of a similar scale and purpose. Provide the number of years of experience for each position listed, and indicate when each position was held. Individual descriptions should be limited to one page. List recent and relevant training received.
b.
Indicate the number of counselors that have participated in your training program or otherwise benefited from the relevant services you provided.
c.
An applicant should characterize performance with regard to the timeliness and completeness with which the applicant satisfied reporting requirements (such as Form HUD 9902.)
Also, indicate whether or not an applicant fully expended grant awards during the specified grant periods. If not fully expended, provide an explanation as to the reason why the funds were not fully expended on time and the steps taken to ensure that future funding will be expended in a timely manner.
This factor addresses the extent to which there is a need to fund proposed activities described in response to Rating Factor 3.
Describe and document the national need, such as the number of housing counselors and areas of housing counseling training, the application intends to address with the services proposed in Rating Factor 3. Responses will be evaluated based on how well they demonstrate a grasp of the elements of the problems this NOFA is intended to address. Include applicable statistics and analyses, if available, contained in data sources that are sound and reliable.
This factor addresses the quality and effectiveness of the proposed work plan. In rating this factor, HUD will evaluate the extent to which the applicant presents a detailed and sound approach for providing the proposed services. HUD will also evaluate the extent to which the applicant demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of its activities, and convincingly explains how the proposed activities will yield long-term results.
a.
Applicants should indicate which of the eligible activities it proposes to provide or whether certain services will be provided by organizations with which an applicant has partnered. An applicant must propose to provide at least five of the eligible services listed in Section III. However, an ideal applicant eligible to receive the maximum number of points will provide, either directly or through partnerships, the full spectrum of eligible activities, and the proposed program will be national in scope. Explain how proposed activities are linked.
An applicant should indicate whether its proposed training program is national in scope. If it is regional in scope, an applicant should indicate the geographic area it proposes to cover. Applicants must propose to provide training covering at least five housing counseling topics listed in Section III, although a comprehensive curriculum is preferred and is eligible to receive the maximum number of points. If an applicant is proposing to provide training for a limited number of topics, the applicant must indicate which of the housing counseling topics listed in Section III of this NOFA, as well as any additional topics, it is proposing to provide.
All proposals to provide training must include a description of the methodology for measuring the success of the training program. All proposals must also include a scholarship element, detailing the full or partial costs to be covered, including travel, hotel, and tuition expenses. Indicate the number of the scholarships you estimate can be offered, and describe plans for determining who will and, if applicable, will not receive scholarships. Demonstrating a satisfactory level of competence in an area of training may be a basis, in whole or in part, for determining scholarship eligibility.
b.
c.
Although HUD funding through this NOFA may fully fund an organization's proposed program, applicants are encouraged to secure the use of other resources to supplement the HUD grant.
In scoring this factor, applicants will be evaluated based on their ability to obtain additional resources for their proposed training and other related eligible activities, including direct financial assistance and in-kind contributions, which may include services, equipment, office space, labor, etc. Resources may be provided by governmental entities, public or private nonprofit organizations, for-profit private organizations, or other entities committed to providing the applicant assistance.
Additionally, resources provided by the applicant, recorded as ‘applicant match’ and ‘program income’ on form SF-424, will count as leveraged resources.
Points for this factor will be awarded based on the ratio of requested HUD funds to total budget for the proposed activities.
Outcomes are benefits accruing to recipients of the service to be offered (
1.
2.
3.
4.
b. HUD intends to provide funding for as full a range of the eligible activities listed in Section III of this NOFA. To achieve this objective, HUD reserves the right to make one award to the highest-ranking applicant that can satisfactorily provide, either directly or though partners, the full spectrum of eligible activities under this NOFA. Should multiple organizations apply that can satisfactorily provide the full spectrum of eligible activities, the entire amount available under this NOFA will be awarded to the highest scorer among organizations that fit this description.
c. In the event that no such comprehensive applicant materializes, HUD may make as many grants in rank order as it considers appropriate to facilitate the provision of the maximum number of eligible activities.
d. If funds remain after funding the highest-ranking applications, HUD may fund all or part of the next highest-ranking application. If an applicant turns down an award offer, HUD may make an offer of funding to the next highest-ranking application. If funds remain after all selections have been made, remaining funds may be available for other competitions for each program where there is a balance of funds.
e. In the event HUD commits an error that, when corrected, would result in selection of an otherwise eligible applicant during the funding round of this NOFA, HUD may select that applicant when sufficient funds become available.
5.
6.
7.
8.
a. Scope of Services Adjustments. HUD reserves the right to require an applicant, as a condition of funding, to provide selected services contained in its proposal. For example, HUD may provide funds for the areas in which grantees have the greatest skill and capability, but not fund the applicant for the full scope of proposed services. HUD may also require selected applicants, as a condition of funding, to provide coverage on a more limited or more extensive geographic scope than originally proposed.
b. HUD will not fund any portion of an application that: Is not eligible for funding under this program's statutory or regulatory requirements; does not meet the requirements of this NOFA; or may be duplicative of other funded programs or activities from prior year awards or other selected applicants. Only the eligible portions of an application (including non-duplicative portions) may be funded.
c. Establishment of performance standards and measures. HUD intends to measure and address the performance and compliance actions of funding recipients in accordance with the applicable standards and sanctions established for this program.
After all eligible applications have been rated and ranked and selections have been made, HUD will notify applicants regarding the disposition of their application.
1.
2.
3.
Grant recipients will be required to submit quarterly progress reports, comparing actual accomplishments with the goals and objectives established for the period, explaining why established goals were not met, and highlighting any problems, delays, or adverse conditions that materially impaired the ability to meet the objectives of the awards.
For further information about this NOFA or application requirements, applicants should contact HUD Headquarters, Program Support Division, at (202) 708-0317 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access any of these numbers via (TTY) by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. For technical help with the electronic submission procedure, applicants may email
A.
B.
1.
2.
3.
4.
b. Assistance provided through grants or cooperative agreements on a discretionary (non-formula, non-demand) basis, but that is not provided on the basis of a competition.
C.
Applicants or employees who have ethics-related questions should contact the HUD Ethics Law Division at (202) 708-3815. (This is not a toll-free number.) HUD employees who have specific program questions should contact the appropriate field office counsel or Headquarters counsel for the program to which the question pertains.
D.
E.