Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department
International Trade Administration
Minority Business Development Agency
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Fiscal Service
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Reclamation Bureau
Prisons Bureau
Employment Standards Administration
Fiscal Service
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Fiscal Service
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 (FAA) DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for Dassault Mystere Falcon Model 20-C5/-D5/-E5/-F5 and Fanjet Falcon Model C/D/E/F series airplanes modified by Flight Test Associates, Inc. These modified airplanes will have novel and unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The modification incorporates installation of Ametek Model AM-250 barometric altimeters. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the protection of these systems from the effects of high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF). These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the existing airworthiness standards.
The effective date of these special conditions is June 3, 2004.
Comments must be received on or before August 2, 2004.
Comments on these special conditions may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Attn: Rules Docket (ANM-113), Docket No. NM283 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98055-4056; or delivered in duplicate to the Transport Airplane Directorate at the above address. All comments must be marked Docket No. NM283.
Greg Dunn, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2799; facsimile (425) 227-1320.
The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay certification of the airplane and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance; however, the FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these special conditions. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on these special conditions, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you.
On August 11, 2003, Flight Test Associates, Inc., Mojave, California, applied to the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, for a supplemental type certificate (STC) to modify Dassault Mystere Falcon Model 20-C5/-D5/-E5/-F5 and Fanjet Falcon Model C/D/E/F series airplanes. The Dassault Mystere Falcon Model 20-C5/-D5/-E5/-F5 and Fanjet Falcon Model C/D/E/F series airplanes are small transport category airplanes powered by two turbine engines, with maximum takeoff weights of up to 29,000 pounds. These airplanes operate with a 2-pilot crew and can seat up to 10 passengers. These models are currently approved under Type Certificate No. A7EU. The proposed modification incorporates installation of Ametek Model AM-250 barometric altimeters. The information this equipment presents is flight critical. The barometric altimeters to be installed on this airplane have the potential to be vulnerable to high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF) external to the airplane.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Flight Test Associates must show that the Dassault Mystere Falcon Model 20-C5/-D5/-E5/-F5 and Fanjet Falcon Model C/D/E/F series airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A7EU, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.”
The regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A7EU include Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b, as amended by amendments 4b-1 through 4b-12, Special Regulation SR422B, and certain requirements of 14 CFR part 25, Amendment levels 25-1 through 25-56. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the modified Dassault Mystere Falcon Model 20-C5/-D5/-E5/-F5 and Fanjet Falcon Model C/D/E/F series airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
Special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38 and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101(b)(2).
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should Flight Test Associates apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. A7EU to incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).
As noted earlier, the modified Dassault Mystere Falcon Model 20-C5/-D5/-E5/-F5 and Fanjet Falcon Model C/D/E/F series airplanes will incorporate new barometric altimeters that will perform critical functions. These systems may be vulnerable to HIRF external to the airplane. The current airworthiness standards of part 25 do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the protection of this equipment from the adverse effects of HIRF. Accordingly, this system is considered to be a novel or unusual design feature.
There is no specific regulation that addresses protection requirements for electrical and electronic systems from HIRF. Increased power levels from ground-based radio transmitters and the growing use of sensitive avionics/electronics and electrical systems to command and control airplanes have made it necessary to provide adequate protection.
To ensure that a level of safety is achieved equivalent to that intended by the regulations incorporated by reference, special conditions are needed for the Dassault Mystere Falcon Model 20-C5/-D5/-E5/-F5 and Fanjet Falcon Model C/D/E/F series airplanes. These special conditions require that new avionics/electronics and electrical systems that perform critical functions be designed and installed to preclude component damage and interruption of function due to both the direct and indirect effects of HIRF.
With the trend toward increased power levels from ground-based transmitters and the advent of space and satellite communications, coupled with electronic command and control of the airplane, the immunity of critical digital avionics/electronics and electrical systems to HIRF must be established.
It is not possible to precisely define the HIRF to which the airplane will be exposed in service. There is also uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling of electromagnetic energy to cockpit-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is undefined. Based on surveys and analysis of existing HIRF emitters, an adequate level of protection exists when compliance is shown with either HIRF protection special condition paragraph 1 or 2 below:
1. A minimum threat of 100 volts rms (root-mean-square) per meter electric field strength from 10 KHz to 18 GHz.
a. The threat must be applied to the system elements and their associated wiring harnesses without the benefit of airframe shielding.
b. Demonstration of this level of protection is established through system tests and analysis.
2. A threat external to the airframe of the field strengths identified in the table below for the frequency ranges indicated. Both peak and average field strength components from the table are to be demonstrated.
The threat levels identified above are the result of an FAA review of existing studies on the subject of HIRF, in light of the ongoing work of the Electromagnetic Effects Harmonization Working Group of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to Dassault Mystere Falcon Model 20-C5/-D5/-E5/-F5 and Fanjet Falcon Model C/D/E/F series airplanes modified by Flight Test Associates. Should Flight Test Associates apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. A7EU to incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the Dassault Mystere Falcon Model 20-C5/-D5/-E5/-F5 and Fanjet Falcon Model C/D/E/F series airplanes modified by Flight Test Associates. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.
The substance of the special conditions for these airplanes has been subjected to the notice and comment procedure in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. Because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
1.
2. For the purpose of these special conditions, the following definition applies:
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all EMBRAER Model EMB-120 series airplanes, that requires revising the Airplane Flight Manual to ensure that the propeller synchronizer switch is “OFF” after engine start and before takeoff and landing. This action is necessary to prevent a possible loss of airplane control and subsequent injury to the flight crew and passengers. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective August 6, 2004.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 6, 2004.
The service information referenced in this AD 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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 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:
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.
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 all EMBRAER Model EMB-120 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 single comment received.
One commenter requests that the FAA modify the Discussion section in the proposed AD to read “* * * the pilot's control of engine power during critical phases of the flight could be limited below the maximum power. Such limitation could result in a reduction of certified climb gradient and subsequent injury to the flight crew and passengers” instead of “* * * the pilot's control of engine power during critical phases of the flight could be impeded. Such an impediment could result in loss of control of the airplane and subsequent injury to the flight crew and passengers.”
We agree with the commenter's request. However, the Discussion section of the proposed AD is not restated in the final rule, so no change to the final rule is needed.
We have revised paragraph (a)(2) of this final rule to reference Revision 65 of EMBRAER EMB-120 Airplane Flight Manual AFM-120/794; the proposed AD referenced revision 64 as the appropriate service information for the AFM revision. The specific AFM pages referenced in that paragraph were not revised at Revision 65, so they remain marked as Revision 64. However, because the AFM is at Revision 65, this revision is necessary to correctly identify the AFM and to meet the Office of the Federal Register's guidelines for materials incorporated by reference. There is no change to the AFM revision requirement specified in that paragraph.
After careful review of the available data, including the comment noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as revised.
The FAA estimates that 217 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $14,105, or $65 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
To prevent a possible loss of airplane control and subsequent injury to the flight crew and passengers, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 30 days from the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD.
(1) Revise the Limitations Section of the AFM to include the following text in “Section II—Limitations” under title “Powerplant,” subtitle “Propeller” (this may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM):
“For takeoff and landing PROP SYNC must be OFF”
When a statement identical to that in paragraph (a)(1) of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM.
(2) Revise the Normal Procedures section of the AFM by inserting pages 4-17, 4-23, and 4-27 of EMBRAER AFM 120/794, Revision 65, dated June 10, 2003, into the AFM.
(b) 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.
(c) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, the actions shall be done in accordance with EMBRAER EMB-120 Airplane Flight Manual AFM-120/794, Revision 65, dated June 10, 2003, which contains the following list of effective pages:
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 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil. 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 Brazilian airworthiness directive 2003-02-01, dated March 3, 2003.
(d) This amendment becomes effective on August 6, 2004.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; request for comments.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, part 71 (14 CFR 71) by revising Class E airspace areas at Columbus, NE. A review of the Class E airspace surface area and the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Columbus, NE reveals neither reflects the current Columbus Municipal Airport airport reference point (ARP). Also neither airspace area complies with criteria for extensions or for diverse departures. These airspace areas are modified to conform to provide controlled airspace of appropriate dimensions to protect aircraft departing and executing Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs) to Columbus Municipal Airport. It modifies the extensions to both Columbus, NE Class E airspace areas, enlarges these airspace areas and brings their legal descriptions into compliance with FAA Orders.
This direct final rule is effective on 0901 UTC, September 30, 2004. Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before August 10, 2004.
Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2004-18013/Airspace Docket No. 04-ACE-42, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at
Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2524.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the Class E surface area and the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Columbus, NE. An examination of controlled airspace for Columbus, NE revealed that the Columbus Municipal Airport ARP used in the legal descriptions for both Class E airspace areas is incorrect. The Class E surface area is enlarged from a 4 to a 4.7-mile radius of the airport, its southeast extension reduced in width from 2.6 to 1.4 miles each side of center and its northwest extension redefined relative to the Platte Center nondirectional radio beacon (NDB) and reduced in width from 3.5 to 1.9 miles each side of center. The Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is increased from a 6.6-mile radius to a 7.7-mile radius of the airport, its southeast extension is extended 1.5 miles and reduced in width from 4.2 to 1.6 miles each side of center and its northwest extension redefined relative to the Platte Center NDB and reduced in width from 4 to 1.9 miles each side of center. These modifications bring the legal descriptions of the Columbus, NE Class E airspace areas into compliance with FAA Orders 7400.2E, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, and 8260.19C, Flight Procedures and Airspace. Class E airspace areas designated as surface areas are published in Paragraph 6002 of FAA Order 7400.9L, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 2, 2003, and effective September 16, 2003, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in Paragraph 6005 of the same Order. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous actions of this nature have not been controversial and have not resulted in adverse comments or objections. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the
Interested parties are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2004-18013/Airspace Docket No. 04-ACE-42.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(6), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Within a 4.7-mile radius of Columbus Municipal Airport and within 1.4 miles each side of the Columbus VOR/DME 157° radial extending from the 4.7-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles southeast of the VOR/DME and within 1.4 miles each side of the Columbus VOR/DME 317° radial extending from the 4.7-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles northwest of the VOR/DME and within 1.9 miles each side of the 330° bearing from Platt Center NDB extending from the 4.7-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles northwest of the NDB.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.7-mile radius of Columbus Municipal Airport and within 1.6 miles each side of the Columbus VOR/DME 157° radial extending from the 7.7-mile radius of the airport to 11 miles southeast of the VOR/DME and within 1.9 miles each side of the 330° bearing from Platt Center NDB extending from the 4.7-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles northwest of the NDB.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meetings.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing three public meetings to solicit comments, data, and scientific information about the current state of quality management techniques, quality systems approaches, and voluntary industry standards concerning current good manufacturing practices (CGMPs) and other controls used by food manufacturers and processors to prevent, reduce, control, or eliminate food borne hazards that can occur during food production or processing. The meetings are intended to elicit information about FDA's CGMP in manufacturing, packing, or holding human food regulations. This information will be useful in determining appropriate revisions to these regulations. We ask that those who speak at the meetings or otherwise provide FDA with their comments focus on our questions given in section II of this document about the CGMP regulations and other quality management techniques. There also will be an opportunity to address small business concerns at the meetings. This document reschedules meetings announced in the
The revised dates for the public meetings are as follows: in College Park, MD, on Monday, July 19, 2004, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon; in Chicago, IL, on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.; and in San Jose, CA, on Thursday, August 5, 2004, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. You should register for any of the meetings by fax or e-mail (see
The public meeting on Monday, July 19, 2004, will be held at the Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835. The public meeting on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, will be held at the Marriott Chicago Downtown, 540 North Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611. The public meeting on Thursday, August 5, 2004, will be held at the County of Santa Clara, Department of Environmental Health, 1555 Berger Dr., San Jose, CA 95112-2716
You may submit comments, identified with Docket No. 2004N-0230, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
• Agency Web site:
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the agency Web site.
• E-mail:
• FAX: 301-827-6870.
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (For paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions): Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Peter J. Vardon, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-726), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD, 301-436-1830, FAX: 301-436- 2626, or e-mail:
FDA last revised its CGMP regulations for food in part 110 (21 CFR part 110) in 1986 (51 FR 22458, June 19, 1986). The primary purpose of the revision was to establish new, updated, or more detailed provisions concerning food industry personnel; plants and grounds; sanitary facilities, controls, and operations; equipment and utensils, warehousing, and distribution; and natural or unavoidable defect levels. FDA designed the revised CGMP regulations to help ensure the safe and sanitary manufacturing, processing, and holding of food for human consumption.
In the almost 20 years since the food CGMPs were revised, the food industry has undergone considerable change, and the agency believes that it is now time to revisit these regulations and determine appropriate revisions to better ensure a safe and sanitary food supply. FDA believes that a good first step is to obtain the views of the industry and the public generally by holding a series of public meetings. The three public meetings are intended to provide interested parties an opportunity to comment on what revisions to the CGMPs FDA should consider. The meetings are also intended to fulfill part of the outreach requirement of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
FDA has drafted the questions set out in this document to help focus comments presented at the public meetings or otherwise communicated to the agency. One area of particular agency focus is potential hazards in the food supply. Generally speaking, there are three categories of hazards that may be present during the production or warehousing of food: Physical hazards (such as the presence of glass fragments in food), chemical hazards (such as the unintended presence of a cleaning solution in food), and microbiological
In responding to the questions set out in this document, please address, to the extent you are able, each of the three types of hazards discussed in the previous paragraph. FDA is particularly interested in receiving comments about food manufacturing practices and other controls used by small food manufacturing and processing entities.
In general, how should the CGMP regulations in part 110 be revised or otherwise modernized? Please describe, generally, the short comings of the current regulations.
1. Which practices specified in current part 110 are most effective at preventing each type of food hazard? Which practices are least effective at such prevention?
2. In today's food manufacturing environment, what conditions, practices, or other factors are the principal contributors to each type of food hazard?
3. If the CGMP regulations were revised, which type or types of food hazards could be most readily prevented through CGMP-type controls?
4. Are there preventive controls, in addition to those set out in part 110, needed to reduce, control, or eliminate each of the three types of food hazards? If yes, please identify the specific hazard and the particular controls, that would reduce, control, or eliminate the hazard.
5. What concepts or underlying principles should guide FDA's adoption of new preventive controls?
6. How should the effectiveness of preventive controls for each of the three types of hazards be most accurately measured?
7. In today's food manufacturing environment, what are the principal contributors to the presence of undeclared allergens in food? For example, do labeling errors or cross-contamination contribute? Which preventive controls could help reduce, control, or eliminate the presence of undeclared allergens in food?
8. Are there existing quality systems or standards (such as international standards) that FDA should consider as part of the agency's exploration of food CGMP modernization? Please identify these systems or standards and explain what their consideration might contribute to this effort.
9. There is a broad variation within the food manufacturing and processing industry, including variations in size of establishments, the nature of the food produced, the degree to which the food is processed, and the vulnerability of a particular operation to physical, chemical, or microbial hazards. How, if at all, should the CGMP regulations be revised to take into account such variation? For example, should there be different sets of preventive controls for identifiable segments of the food industry, such as different storage temperature limits?
10. There are a number of measures, procedures, and programs that help to ensure that preventive controls are carried out adequately. These include the following items:
• Training programs for managers and/or workers;
• Audit programs;
• Written records, e.g., batch records, sanitation records;
• Validation of control measures;
• Written sanitation standard operating procedures;
• Food label review and control program; and
• Testing of incoming raw materials, in process materials, or finished products.
Which (if any) of these should be required practices for food and manufacturers and why? Which (if any) of these should be recommended practices for food manufacturers and processors and why?
11. Are there preventive controls in addition to those already set out in part 110 for food distributors, wholesalers, and warehousers that are needed to help ensure the safe and sanitary holding of food? If yes, please identify the controls by hazard and sector of the industry.
You should register for any of the meetings by fax or e-mail (see
A transcript will be made of the proceedings of each meeting. You may request a copy of a meeting transcript in writing from FDA's Freedom of Information Office (HFI-35), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 12A-16, Rockville, MD 20857, approximately 30 working days after the public meetings at a cost of 10 cents per page. The transcript of each public meeting and all comments submitted will be available for public examination at the Division of Dockets Management (see
In addition to presenting oral comments at a public meeting, interested persons may submit (see
Department of State.
Final Rule.
The Department of State, in consultation with the Departments of Defense and Commerce, is amending the text of Category XIV of the United States Munitions List (USML) as published in the
In addition, to reflect the March 29, 2004 accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) of seven European countries, section 123.27 of the International traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) is being amended to add Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, ATTN: Regulatory Change, USML Part 121, Category XIV, 12th Floor, SA-1, Washington DC 20522-0112. E-mail comments may be sent to:
Mr. Stephen Tomchik, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, Department of State, Telephone (202) 663-2799 or FAX (202) 261-8199. ATTN: Regulatory Change, USML Part 121, Category XIV.
1.
2.
This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, is not subject to the procedures required by 5 U.S.C. 553 and 554. It is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 but has been reviewed internally by the Department of State to ensure consistency with the purposes thereof. This rule does not require analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. It has been found not to be a major rule within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 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 rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant application of consultation provisions of Executive Orders 12372 and 13132.
Arms and munitions, Exports.
Sec. 2, 38, and 71, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2278, 2797); E.O. 11958, 42 FR 4311; 3 CFR 1977 Comp. p. 79; 22 U.S.C. 2658; Pub. L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 1920.
*(f) Equipment and its components, parts, accessories, and attachments specifically designed or modified for military operations and compatibility with military equipment as follows:
(1) The dissemination, dispersion or testing of the chemical agents, biological agents, tear gases and riot control agents, and defoliants listed in paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (e), respectively, of this category;
Secs. 2, 38, and 71, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, and 2797); 22 U.S.C. 2753; E.O. 11958, 42 FR 4311; 3 CFR, 1977 Comp. p. 79; 22 U.S.C. 2658; Pub. L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 1920.
(a) * * *
(1) The proposed exports or re-exports concern exclusively one or more countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States) and/or one or more countries which have been designated in accordance with section 517 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as a major non-NATO ally (and as defined further in section 644(q) of that Act) for purposes of that Act and the Arms Export Control Act (Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, New Zealand, the Philippines, Thailand, and the Republic of Korea).
Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
Final Rule.
In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) amends its regulations on how an inmate may receive funds from family, friends, and other sources. Under previous regulation, funds intended for any inmate's use were included in correspondence sent to the inmate or left with staff as part of visiting. Staff at the institution arranged for the deposit of these funds into the inmate's account. Under the new regulations, funds from family, friends, or other sources will no longer be sent to the inmate but will instead be sent directly to a centralized inmate commissary account in the form of a money order for receipt and posting. Under the new rule, we will not accept funds sent by family or friends to the inmate's location. Instead, we will return them to the sender, provided there is an adequate return address. We intend this amendment to provide for the more efficient processing of inmate funds.
This rule is effective August 2, 2004.
Rules Unit, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534.
Sarah Qureshi, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 307-2105.
The Bureau adds new regulations (28 CFR Part 506) pertaining to inmate deposits and makes conforming amendments to the regulation on inmate correspondence (28 CFR 540.23). We published the proposed rule on this subject on April 23, 1999 (64 FR 20125). We published the previous provisions in § 540.23 in the
This new rule establishes a centralized inmate funds collection process commonly referred to as “LockBox”. The funds will be processed at the central location and then electronically transferred to the inmate's Commissary account at the location where the inmate is housed via an existing Trust Fund Wide Area Network. There is no additional cost for this transfer. The LockBox services are provided to the Bureau through an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Treasury. Independent banks are not affected as all Commissary funds are required to be maintained in the U.S. Treasury. The inmate Trust Fund will pay for the LockBox services, depending on the volume of transactions, but no taxpayer money is involved.
Previous provisions on general correspondence allow an inmate, upon completing the appropriate form, to receive funds through the mail from family or friends or, on approval of the Warden, from other persons for crediting to the inmate's trust fund account. Previous provisions on visiting provide that the Warden may allow a visitor to leave money with a designated staff member for deposit in the inmate's commissary account. Institution staff were responsible for processing these funds.
Under the new rule, all inmate funds from family and friends must be sent directly to a centralized inmate commissary account. The deposit must be in the form of a money order and the envelope must not contain any enclosures intended for delivery to the inmate as any enclosure is subject to disposal.
We must receive deposits in the form of a money order. We will not accept personal checks, but will return them provided the check has adequate return address information. However, if we receive funds from other sources, such as tax refunds, dividends from stocks, or state benefits, we will forward them for deposit into the centralized inmate commissary account. Tax refunds, dividends from stocks, and state benefits are recognized as Treasury checks, and Bureau experience has shown that they have a much lower risk of cancellation (
We previously managed our inmate accounting functions in a completely de-centralized fashion. Each institution operated separately and distinctly from one another, although each performed virtually identical functions, such as posting mail room collections to inmate accounts, making daily trips to the bank to deposit collections, establishing inmate accounts each time an inmate arrives at their current location, and transferring funds between institutions. We believe that having a centralized inmate commissary account will benefit inmates by allowing them immediate access to their funds.
Also, the centralized inmate commissary account will eliminate redundant work efforts, allow institutions complete access to detailed inmate account history, remove personal liability from institution staff related to handling of inmate funds, and enhance Bureau security by allowing centralized reporting and comparisons of sources of incoming funds and destination of outgoing funds across all institutions. The tremendous growth of the number of Bureau facilities coupled with new computer networking technology have made the current method of managing inmate funds outdated, inefficient, and costly.
One commenter asks if it is possible to have some type of savings account and transfer money from an inmate account to that bank savings account or a mutual fund. This commenter also asks how much money inmates are allowed to have in their inmate account.
Under current Bureau policy, (Program Statement 2000.02, Accounting Management Manual) we encourage inmates to participate in a continuous savings program. The savings may be in the form of a passbook savings account, certificate of deposit, any money market accounts, or U.S. Savings Bonds. Inmates are not limited in the amount that may be maintained in their inmate account.
Another commenter makes the following recommendations:
1. Clarify in the rule language what type of money order is permissible (postal Money Order, American Express Money Order, etc).
2. The centralized location for the inmate accounts should be Bureau headquarters.
3. Money orders should include inmate name and number.
4. Any funds received by institutions from other sources should be sent by registered mail on a daily basis from each institution and be accompanied by a list with the inmate name, number, and amount of the check.
Another commenter had the following concerns:
1. The changes to the rule would cause confusion among families, friends and businesses regarding the proper procedures for sending money. The central receiving location may also lose money/money orders sent in for inmates.
2. The rule does not set forth a process for accepting checks from businesses that may be refunding money for items the inmate ordered but were not available.
3. The rule does not address how or when we will notify the inmate that we have received or rejected funds designated for their account.
Another commenter stated that, since inmates receive money from families as gifts and often such mail contains cards, letters, and magazines, etc., the rule would have a chilling effect on familial contact and a reduction in familial monies to assist the inmates. This commenter is concerned that this reduction would decrease the ability of inmates to pay their COIF, fines and restitution which could impact state, local and tribal governments.
Currently, staff removes money from incoming mail and credits the inmate's account as appropriate. The new process described in the rules is different only in that money orders will go to a location other than where the inmate is physically incarcerated. It will still be credited to the inmate's account as appropriate, and inmates will actually be able to access newly-arrived funds more quickly because of the electronic depositing system.
Also, the Bureau's responsibility to its inmates requires that inmates have quick and easy access to deposited funds. We do not believe that this rule will have a “chilling effect” on familial communications because it will not hamper families' abilities to send cards to inmates or continue any other previously existing form of personal communication. Families may communicate with inmates using the same procedures as existed before this rule. This rule merely addresses how money may be sent so that inmates may receive it more quickly.
Another commenter is concerned that the Bureau will only allow funds from family and friends in the form of a money order. The commenter states that preventing personal checks would create a hardship for relatives or friends who may be elderly or infirm or who have busy schedules. The time and hassle of waiting in line at the post office (or bank) is too much for some people because of time constraints or physical limitations.
The primary focus of this rule is on the efficient management of inmate funds. Relatives and friends may easily, without “time and hassle,” get money orders from the U.S. Postal Service, banks, and convenience stores or supermarkets. Money orders will be more convenient for the inmate, since electronic depositing will allow funds to be available immediately. By contrast, domestic personal checks, once received, have a 15-day hold before an inmate may access those funds and non-domestic and foreign negotiable instruments have a 30-60-day hold before an inmate may access those funds.
There are several other reasons for our decision not to accept personal checks. Accepting personal domestic and foreign checks increases the risk of accepting insufficient funds, processing canceled checks and forged checks, etc. Approximately three percent of all negotiable instruments we received for deposit into inmate accounts are domestic checks. Of those, approximately 600 per year are determined to have insufficient funds. Up to 60 hours of staff time/resources is expended for each check we accept that must later be returned for insufficient funds.
Under the previous system, unless otherwise notified of insufficient funds by the U.S. Treasury, funds are automatically posted to the inmate's Commissary account after the holding period has elapsed. The inmate may then spend the funds. However, if a check posted to an inmate account is later returned by the U.S. Treasury on a debit voucher for insufficient funds (found to be a “bad check”), the amount of the returned check is immediately removed from the inmate account. This can occur even after the funds have been in the inmate's account for 30 days or more.
If the inmate has insufficient funds when we seek to remove money placed there as a result of a bad check, all of the inmate's available funds are withdrawn and the inmate's account may reflect a negative balance for the uncollected amount. Furthermore, any future funds the inmate receives will be applied toward the negative balance resulting from the bad check until full reimbursement has been collected.
A total of 97% of debit vouchers received are received after the funds have been posted. It was found that an inmate's accounts may have a negative balance from two to 24 months. When the inmate carries a negative balance, staff must ensure that all funds posted to his account are removed as partial payment for the bad check, and staff must generate several accounting entries to the Standard General Ledger (SGL). This process may prove to be extremely time consuming. Although the total time period to process a debit voucher should be no greater than .75 hours, staff resources to collect and process partial payments on one lengthy case may easily exceed 48 hours.
If the inmate is released from custody with a negative balance, or if a debit voucher is received from the U.S. Treasury after the inmate's release, we must initiate debt collection procedures under the Debt Collection Act. Collection procedures include immediate contact with the former inmate, notifying them of the debt owed, with subsequent follow-up letters requesting reimbursement of the cancelled negotiable instrument. This
If all attempts to collect the debt are unsuccessful, staff must contact the appropriate Regional Office, which must make a determination to immediately refer the case to the Central Office Debt Management Officer, or initiate correspondence to the debtor from the Deputy Regional Director. If debt collection is still unsuccessful, then the case will be referred to the Debt Management Officer located in the Central Office. Approximately four hours of resources are used in this process.
The Central Office Debt Management Officer will then recommend final disposition of the debt, either referring the debt to the IRS Offset Program or recommending a write-off of the debt.
Collection of debts from former inmates can be extremely time consuming and unsuccessful. Under the new rule, by not accepting domestic checks, we will greatly reduce the loss of money, staff time and resources from unsuccessful collection attempts.
The Director certifies that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and therefore was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget for review.
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Under Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications for which we would prepare a Federalism Assessment.
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), reviewed this regulation. By approving it, the Director certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities because: This rule is about the correctional management of offenders committed to the custody of the Attorney General or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and its economic impact is limited to the Bureau's appropriated funds.
This rule will not cause State, local and tribal governments, or the private sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. We do not need to take action under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by *804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
Prisoners.
5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 5006-5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984 as to offenses committed after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 31 U.S.C. 1321.
The purpose of individual inmate commissary accounts is to allow the Bureau to maintain inmates' monies while they are incarcerated. Family, friends, or other sources may deposit funds into these accounts.
(a)
(1) The deposit envelope must not contain any enclosures intended for delivery to the inmate. We may dispose of any enclosure.
(2) The deposit must be in the form of a money order made out to the inmate's full name and complete register number. We will return checks to the sender provided the check contains an adequate return address.
(b)
5 U.S.C. 301, 551, 552A, 18 U.S.C. 1791, 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 5006-5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984, as to offenses committed after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509.
Except as provided for in part 506 of this chapter, funds enclosed in inmate correspondence are to be rejected. Deposits intended for the inmate's commissary account must be mailed directly to the centralized commissary account (see 28 CFR part 506).
(h) * * *
(3) The visiting room officer may not accept articles or gifts of any kind for an inmate, except packages which have had prior approval by the Warden or a designated staff member.
Bureau of the Public Debt, Fiscal Service, Treasury.
Final rule.
The offering of Series HH Savings Bonds will terminate at the close of business on August 31, 2004.
Effective August 31, 2004.
You can download this final rule at the following Internet addresses:
After August 31, 2004, owners of Series E or EE bonds will no longer be able to exchange them for Series HH bonds, and owners of matured Series H or Series HH bonds will not be able to reinvest in Series HH bonds. Series HH bonds issued through August 2004 will continue to earn interest until they reach final maturity 20 years after issue. We are terminating the offering due to the high cost of exchanges in relation to the relatively low volume of transactions.
This final rule does not meet the criteria for a “significant regulatory action” as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, the regulatory review procedures contained therein do not apply.
This final rule relates to matters of public contract and procedures for United States securities. The notice and public procedures requirements and delayed effective date requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act are inapplicable, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).
As no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
We ask for no new collections of information in this final rule. Therefore, the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507) does not apply.
Bonds, Government securities.
31 U.S.C. 3105, 5 U.S.C. 301.
The Secretary of the Treasury offered to the people of the United States, United States Savings Bonds of Series HH in exchange for eligible United States Savings Bonds of Series E and EE and United States Savings Notes (Freedom Shares). This offering is being withdrawn and will terminate at the close of business on August 31, 2004.
Series HH bonds were issued and may be redeemed only by Federal Reserve Banks (see § 352.13) and the Bureau of the Public Debt.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) To add the cash necessary to bring the amount of the application to the next higher multiple of $500, or
(2) To receive a payment to reduce the amount of the application to the next lower multiple of $500.
(e)
(1) If the securities submitted for exchange were in single ownership form, the owner was required to be named as owner or first-named coowner on the Series HH bonds. A coowner or beneficiary was permitted to be named.
(2) If the securities submitted for exchange were in coownership form, and one coowner was the “principal coowner”, that person was required to be named as owner or first-named coowner on the Series HH bonds. A coowner or beneficiary was also permitted to be named. The “principal coowner” was the coowner who
(3) If the securities presented for exchange were in coownership form, and both coowners shared in their purchase or received them jointly as a gift, inheritance, or legacy or as a result of judicial proceedings, both persons were required to be named as coowners on the Series HH bonds.
(4) If the securities presented for exchange were in beneficiary form, the owner was required to be named on the Series HH bonds as owner or first-named coowner. If the owner was deceased, a surviving beneficiary was required to be named as owner or first-named coowner. In either case, a coowner or beneficiary was permitted to be named.
(f)
(g)
(2)
(3)
(h)
(a)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing safety zones on the waters located in the Portland, Oregon, Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone during fireworks displays. The COTP is taking this action to safeguard watercraft and their occupants from safety hazards associated with these displays. Entry into these safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP.
This rule is effective from 10 p.m. July 4, 2004, through 10:30 p.m. July 24, 2004.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are available for inspection or copying at the U.S. Coast Guard MSO/Group Portland, 6767 N. Basin Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97217 between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Lieutenant Junior Grade Belen Audirsch, c/o Captain of the Port, Portland, 6767 N. Basin Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97217, (503) 240-9301.
Safety zones for these events are being submitted through the normal rulemaking process for 2005. Following normal notice and comment procedures
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones to allow for safe fireworks displays indicated in section 2(a)(1-11) of this temporary final rule. All events occur within the Portland, Oregon, Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone. These events may result in a number of vessels congregating near fireworks launching barges and sites. The safety zones are needed to protect watercraft and their occupants from safety hazards associated with fireworks displays. These safety zones will be enforced by representatives of the Captain of the Port, Portland, Oregon. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other federal and local agencies.
In response to safety concerns, this rule will control vessels, personnel and individual movements in a regulated area surrounding the firework events indicated in § 165.T13-008(a)(1)-(11) of this temporary final rule. Entry into these zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Portland, or his designated representative. Coast Guard personnel will enforce these safety zones. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other federal and local agencies.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under that Order. This rule is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security. The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures act of DHS is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the fact that the regulated areas established by this rule will encompass small portions of rivers in the COTP Zone on different dates, all in the evening when vessel traffic is low.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this temporary final rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those unfunded mandate costs. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian tribal governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A Categorical Exclusion is provided for temporary safety zones of less than one week in duration.
Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and Record Keeping Requirements, Security Measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(4)
(i)
(ii)
(5)
(i)
(ii)
(6)
(i)
(ii)
(7)
(i)
(ii)
(8)
(i)
(ii)
(9)
(i)
(ii)
(10)
(i)
(ii)
(11)
(i)
(ii)
(b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in Section 165.23 of this part, no person or vessel may enter or remain in this zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representatives.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a request from New Jersey to revise its State Implementation Plan to incorporate revisions to Subchapter 16 “Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Volatile Organic Compounds.” These revisions relate to the control of volatile organic compounds from mobile equipment repair and refinishing operations, solvent cleaning operations and refueling of motor vehicles at gasoline service stations. The intended effect is to reduce the emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and thereby reduce ozone concentrations in the lower atmosphere.
Copies of the State submittals are available at the following addresses for inspection during normal business hours:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Office of Air Quality Management, Bureau of Air Quality Planning, 401 East State Street, CN418, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.
Paul Truchan, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3711 or
EPA is approving a revision to New Jersey's ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on June 4, 2003. This SIP incorporates amendments to Title 7, Chapter 27, “Subchapter 16 Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds” which was adopted on April 30, 2003. This adoption was published in the New Jersey Register on June 2, 2003 and became effective on June 29, 2003. New Jersey amended Subchapter 16 to include revisions to three control programs: Solvent cleaning operations, mobile equipment repair and refinishing operations, and gasoline transfer operations. The Subchapter 16 amendments are applicable to the entire State of New Jersey. The reader is referred to the proposed rulemaking (November 21, 2003, 68 FR 65646) for additional details.
EPA received one comment on the proposal. The commenter stressed the importance of the training provisions for the mobile equipment repair and refinishing operations. The commenter further stated that enforcement of the training requirement is necessary and that the trainees should learn the course material and not just sit in a classroom.
Both EPA and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection recognize the importance and benefit of having a trained workforce. A trained workforce can minimize the emissions VOCs and maintain peak efficiency by operating and servicing equipment according to equipment manufacturers instructions. Accordingly, New Jersey specifically included the requirement (Subchapter 16, 16.12(i)) in the amendments to the rule. The provision requires the owner or operator of the facility to ensure that “any one who applies coatings at the mobile equipment repair and refinishing facility has completed training in the proper use and handling of the following [equipment] in order to minimize the emission of air contaminants.* * *” Since this will also become a requirement of the SIP, both the State and EPA will have enforcement authority. When New Jersey enforcement personnel inspect an affected facility they will check training records to insure workers operating the equipment and using solvents have been properly trained. Failure of equipment operators to comply with proper techniques would provide a basis for an enforcement citation. Failure to have a trained work force or keep accurate training records would be grounds for a facility and/or its owner to be issued a citation and be put on a compliance plan to insure the provisions have been carried out. Therefore, EPA is confident that New Jersey intends to enforce this provision as it would any other provision in its adopted regulations. In addition, by approving this regulations into the SIP, EPA can also enforce these provisions.
When EPA evaluated New Jersey's 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations, EPA determined that additional emission reductions were needed for the State's two severe nonattainment areas in order for the State to attain the 1-hour ozone standard with sufficient surety (December 16, 1999, 64 FR 70380). EPA provided that the States in the Ozone Transport Region could achieve these emission reductions through regional control programs. New Jersey decided to participate with the other States in the Northeast in an Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) regulatory development effort which developed six model control measures. This rulemaking incorporates two of the OTC model control measures into the SIP: solvent cleaning operations, and mobile equipment repair and refinishing operations. The third control measure included in this rulemaking tightens controls on gasoline transfer operations. The emission reductions from these control measures will provide a portion of the additional emission reductions needed to attain the 1-hour ozone standard. The emission reductions from these measures will most certainly be necessary to provide for attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.
EPA has evaluated the submitted amendments for consistency with EPA regulations, EPA policy and guidance. The proposed control measures exceed the reasonably available control technology (RACT) level controls that were previously approved for these source categories. These new control programs will strengthen the SIP by providing for additional VOC emission reductions. Accordingly, EPA is approving the Subchapter 16 revisions as adopted on April 30, 2003.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 31, 2004. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
(c) * * *
(74) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted on June 4, 2003 and January 6, 2004 by the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection that establishes control programs for mobile equipment repair and refinishing operations, solvent cleaning operations and refueling of motor vehicles at gasoline service stations.
(i) Incorporation by reference:
(A) Regulation Subchapter 16 of Title 7, Chapter 27 of the New Jersey Administrative Code, entitled “Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds,” adopted on April 30, 2003 and effective on June 29, 2003.
(ii) Additional material:
(A) Letter from State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection dated June 4, 2003, requesting EPA approval of a revision to the Ozone SIP which contains amendments to the Subchapter 16 “Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds.”
(B) Letter from State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection dated January 6, 2004 providing a compiled version of Subchapter 16 which include the amendments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Partial withdrawal of direct final rule.
Due to an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing a paragraph that was included as part of a direct final rule to approve Pennsylvania's SIP pertaining to source-specific volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NO
The addition of 40 CFR 52.2020 (c)(213)(i)(B)(
Betty Harris, by telephone at: 215-814-2168, or by e-mail at:
See the information provided in the direct final rule located in the Rules and Regulations section of the May 24, 2004
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Partial withdrawal of direct final rule.
On May 20, 2004 (69 FR 29074), EPA published a direct final approval of a revision to the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerned Clark County Department of Air Quality Management Section 11, Ambient Air Quality Standards. On its own initiative, EPA is now withdrawing the May 20, 2004 direct final rule with respect to Section 11 to avoid confusion with a subsequent action in which EPA proposed approval of Section 11 along with other Clark County air pollution control rules relating to the local New Source Review program.
The other rule, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Rule 34, approved in the May 20, 2004 direct final action, is not affected by this withdrawal and is incorporated into the SIP as of July 19, 2004, unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 21, 2004, as set forth in the May 20, 2004 direct final rule.
The addition of 40 CFR 52.1470(c)(46) published at 69 FR 29076 on May 20, 2004, is withdrawn as of July 2, 2004.
Julie Rose, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4126,
Members of the public with comments on our proposed approval of Section 11 (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), that are suspended on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will be withdrawn by publication in the
If you wish to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional Office or the NFIP servicing contractor.
Mike Grimm, Mitigation Division, 500 C Street, SW., Room 412, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2878.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program, 42 U.S.C. 4001
In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has identified the special flood hazard areas in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the FIRM if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in the identified special flood hazard area of communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year, on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's initial flood insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives a 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification addressed to the Chief Executive Officer that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications have been made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless they take remedial action.
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, October 26, 1987, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.; p. 252.
This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778, October 25, 1991, 56 FR 55195, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp.; p. 309.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Communications Commission.
Correcting amendments.
The Federal Communications Commission published a document in the
Effective on July 2, 2004, except for the revisions to § 64.1001, which contains information requirements that have not yet been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document announcing the effective date of this section.
Mary Jane Solomon, International Bureau, telephone (202) 418-0593 or via the Internet at
The Commission published a document in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Communications and common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, 303(r), 309 and 325(e).
(a) Applications for cable landing licenses under 47 U.S.C. 34-39 and Executive Order No. 10530, dated May 10, 1954, should be filed in accordance with the provisions of that Executive Order. You may file your application electronically on the Internet through the International Bureau Filing System (IBFS) or by paper. For information on filing your application through IBFS, see Part 1, Subpart Y and the IBFS homepage at
(1) The name, address and telephone number(s) of the applicant;
(2) The Government, State, or Territory under the laws of which each corporate or partnership applicant is organized;
(3) The name, title, post office address, and telephone number of the officer and any other contact point, such as legal counsel, to whom correspondence concerning the application is to be addressed;
(4) A description of the submarine cable, including the type and number of channels and the capacity thereof;
(5) A specific description of the cable landing stations on the shore of the United States and in foreign countries where the cable will land. The description shall include a map showing specific geographic coordinates, and may also include street addresses, of each landing station. The map must also specify the coordinates of any beach joint where those coordinates differ from the coordinates of the cable station. The applicant initially may file a general geographic description of the landing points; however, grant of the application will be conditioned on the Commission's final approval of a more specific description of the landing points, including all information required by this paragraph, to be filed by the applicant no later than ninety (90) days prior to construction. The Commission will give public notice of the filing of this description, and grant of the license will be considered final if the Commission does not notify the applicant otherwise in writing no later than sixty (60) days after receipt of the specific description of the landing points, unless the Commission designates a different time period;
(6) A statement as to whether the cable will be operated on a common carrier or non-common carrier basis;
(7) A list of the proposed owners of the cable system, including each U.S. cable landing station, their respective voting and ownership interests in each U.S. cable landing station, their respective voting interests in the wet link portion of the cable system, and their respective ownership interests by segment in the cable;
(8) For each applicant of the cable system, a certification as to whether the applicant is, or is affiliated with, a foreign carrier, including an entity that owns or controls a foreign cable landing station in any of the cable's destination markets. Include the citizenship of each applicant and information and certifications required in §§ 63.18(h) through (k), and in § 63.18(o), of this chapter;
(9) A certification that the applicant accepts and will abide by the routine conditions specified in paragraph (g) of this section; and
(10) Any other information that may be necessary to enable the Commission to act on the application.
(11)(i) If applying for authority to assign or transfer control of an interest in a cable system, the applicant shall complete paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section for both the transferor/assignor and the transferee/assignee. Only the transferee/assignee needs to complete paragraphs (a)(8) through (a)(9) of this section. At the beginning of the application, the applicant should also include a narrative of the means by which the transfer or assignment will take place. The application shall also specify, on a segment specific basis, the percentage of voting and ownership interests being transferred or assigned in the cable system, including in a U.S. cable landing station. The Commission reserves the right to request additional information as to the particulars of the transaction to aid it in making its public interest determination.
(ii) In the event the transaction requiring an assignment or transfer of control application also requires the filing of a foreign carrier affiliation notification pursuant to § 1.768, the applicant shall reference in the application the foreign carrier affiliation notification and the date of its filing.
(iii) An assignee or transferee shall notify the Commission no later than thirty (30) days after either consummation of the assignment or transfer or a decision not to consummate the assignment or transfer. The notification may be by letter and shall identify the file numbers under which the initial license and the authorization of the assignment or transfer were granted.
47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); secs. 403(b)(2)(B), (c), Public Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 225, 226, 228, and 254(k) unless otherwise noted.
(a) The procedures set forth in this rule apply to carriers that are required to file with the International Bureau, pursuant to § 43.51(e) of this chapter, requests to modify international settlement arrangements. Any operating agreement or amendment for which a modification request is required to be filed cannot become effective until the modification request has been granted under paragraph (e) of this section. If you must file a modification request, you may either file electronically or on paper. The electronic form requires you to submit the same information that is required in the paper filing, specified below. A modification request may be filed electronically on the Internet through the International Bureau Filing System (IBFS) or by paper. For information on filing your notification through IBFS, see part 1, subpart Y of this chapter, and the IBFS homepage at
(b) A modification request must contain the following information:
(1) The applicable international service;
(2) The name of the foreign telecommunications administration;
(3) The present accounting rate (including any surcharges);
(4) The new accounting rate (including any surcharges);
(5) The effective date;
(6) The division of the accounting rate; and
(7) An explanation of any proposed modification(s) in the operating agreement with the foreign correspondent.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the tuberculosis regulations by removing the two different definitions of
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 31, 2004.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Dr. Terry Beals, National Tuberculosis Program Coordinator, Eradication and Surveillance Team, National Center for Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4020 N. Lincoln Blvd., Suite 101, Oklahoma City, OK 73105; (405) 427-2998.
Bovine tuberculosis is a contagious and infectious granulomatous disease caused by
Federal regulations implementing this program are contained in 9 CFR part 77, “Tuberculosis” and in the “Uniform Methods and Rules—Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication” (UMR), January 22, 1999, edition, which is incorporated by reference into the regulations in part 77. The regulations restrict the interstate movement of cattle, bison, and captive cervids to prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis. Subpart A of part 77 (§§ 77.1-77.4) contains general provisions of the tuberculosis regulations such as definitions; subpart B (§§ 77.5-77.19) contains specific provisions regarding cattle and bison; and subpart C (§§ 77.20-77.41) contains specific provisions regarding captive cervids.
Currently, there are two definitions of
We are proposing to remove these two definitions, which are out-of-date and inconsistent, and replace them with a new definition that would apply to cattle, bison, and captive cervids and be consistent with that in the UMR.
We would define
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
We are proposing to amend the tuberculosis regulations by removing the two different definitions of
No economic benefits of costs are associated with this action, which would simply update and clarify our definition of
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
This proposed rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR part 77 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 77 would continue to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
2. Section 77.2 would be amended by adding, in alphabetical order, a definition of
3. Sections 77.5 and 77.20 would be amended by removing the definitions of
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This action proposes to establish new Class E airspace at Beaver, AK. Two new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) are being published for the Beaver Airport. There is no existing Class E airspace to contain aircraft executing the new instrument approaches at Beaver, AK. Adoption of this proposal would result in the establishment of Class E airspace upward from 700 feet (ft.) above the surface at Beaver, AK.
Comments must be received on or before August 16, 2004.
Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2004-18061/Airspace Docket No. 04-AAL-9, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Regional Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Manager, Operations Branch, AAL-530, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587.
Jesse Patterson, AAL-538G, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number (907) 271-5898; fax: (907) 271-2850; e-mail:
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2004-18061/Airspace Docket No. 04-AAL-9.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591 or by calling (202) 267-8783. Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is considering an amendment to the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by establishing new Class E airspace at Beaver, AK. The intended effect of this proposal is to establish Class E airspace upward from 700 ft. above the surface, to contain Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at Beaver, AK.
The FAA Instrument Flight Procedures Production and Maintenance Branch has developed two new SIAPs for the Beaver Airport. The new approaches are (1) Area Navigation (Global Positioning System) (RNAV GPS) Runway (RWY) 5, original; and (2) RNAV (GPS) Runway 23, original. New Class E controlled airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface within the Beaver Airport area would be created by this action. The proposed airspace is sufficient to contain aircraft executing the new instrument procedures for the Beaver airport.
The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Order 7400.9L,
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only invoked an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significantly regulatory action” under Executive Order 1266; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9L,
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of the Beaver Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of public meeting.
The FAA will hold an informal public meeting to seek input from a specific, focused group of aviation weather users. Details: July 14, 2004; Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA), 421 Aviation Way, Frederick, MD 21701-4756; 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The objective of this meeting is to provide an opportunity for a specific group of aviation weather users, general aviation pilots, to provide input on FAA's plans for implementing new weather products.
The meeting will be held at AOPA, 421 Aviation Way, Frederick, MD 21701-4756: 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on July 14, 2004.
Debi Bacon, Aerospace Weather Policy Division, ARS-100, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone number (202) 385-7705; Fax: (202) 385-7701; e-mail:
In 1999, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) established an Aviation Weather Technology Transfer (AWTT) Board to manage the orderly transfer of weather capabilities and products from research and development (R&D) into operational use. The board is composed of mid-level managers from FAA and National Weather Service (NWS) and meet semi-annually or as needed. The Board is responsible to determine the readiness of weather R&D products for
FAA has the sole responsibility and authority to make decisions intended to provide a safe, secure, and efficient U.S. national airspace system. However, it behooves FAA to not make decisions in a vacuum. Therefore, FAA seeks input from the user community at quarterly meetings before decisions are finalized. Two such meetings were held in January and April 2004.
At the quarterly meetings, industry users are invited to provide for development of concepts of use (ConUse) for individual aviation weather products approaching specific AWTT board decision points. In 2004, meetings are also being used to acquire input for an aviation weather roadmap. Meetings are announced in the
While this meeting is the normal quarterly meeting, input will not be sought for any specific weather product. Rather, it is intended to acquire input for the aviation weather roadmap from one specific user group: General aviation pilots. All interested users in other user groups may attend and observe, however only certain, focused information will be sought from the specific group.
(a) The meeting will be informal in nature and will be conducted by representatives of FAA Headquarters.
(b) The meeting will be open to all persons on a space-available basis. Every effort was made to provide a meeting site with sufficient seating capacity for the expected participation. There will be neither admission fee nor other charge to attend and participate.
(c) Attendees should present themselves to the receptionist at the front entrance of the AOPA, 421 Aviation Way, Frederick, MD 21701-4756. Attendees will be further directed to the meeting room location.
(d) FAA personnel will lead a session intended to refine an aviation weather roadmap. Comments from the specific user group will be sued to complete and/or verify a decision-making matrix regarding specific types of weather phenomena. Comments/Feedback on the proposed documents will be captured through discussion between FAA personnel and those focused users attending the meeting.
(e) FAA will not take any action items from this meeting nor make any commitments to accept specific users suggestions. The meeting will not be formally recorded. However, informal tape recordings may be made of the presentations to ensure that each respondent's comments are noted accurately.
(f) An official verbatim transcript or minutes of the informal meeting will not be made. However, a list of the attendees and a completed matrix will be produced. Any person attending may receive a copy of the written information upon request to the information contact, above.
(g) Every reasonable effort will be made to hear each person's feedback consistent with a reasonable closing time for the meeting. Written feedback is also solicited and may be submitted to FAA personnel for the period July 15-August 31, 2004.
(a) Opening Remarks and Discussion of Meeting Procedures.
(b) Review of AWTT user input process.
(c) Focused Input Session.
(d) Closing Comments.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is proposing to amend its regulations governing notice of Commission issuances. This change would affect both service list and mailing list recipients. The revisions are needed to allow the Commission, in most instances, to send notice of issuances via e-mail. The proposed revisions are intended to increase the speed with which recipients receive issuances and reduce Commission costs, and will also provide more accurate and up-to-date service lists for parties to Commission proceedings to employ. The Commission also is proposing a revision to its regulations governing service by participants to Commission proceedings upon other participants to encourage greater use of service by electronic means. Finally, the Commission is proposing to clarify its regulations to ensure that documents with certification or verification requirements may be filed electronically.
Comments are due August 2, 2004.
Comments may be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at
Wilbur Miller, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426; (202) 502-8953.
1. As part of its effort to reduce the use of paper in compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act,
2. The Commission since 2000 has issued a series of rulemakings to convert the amount of paper involved in its proceedings, as far as possible, to
3. The Commission is proposing to initiate an eService program during 2005 that will require each person on a service list to provide an eRegistered e-mail address so that the Commission's Secretary, pursuant to Rule 2010(b),
4. To implement eService, the Commission proposes revising Rule 2010 to require persons eligible to receive service under that rule to eRegister pursuant to 18 CFR 390.1 (2003). The requirement of eRegistration would apply only to participants who become eligible for inclusion on a service list after the effective date of the final rule. Participants already on existing service lists would not be required to take any additional steps. The Commission anticipates, however, that it will inform these contacts that they may eRegister and, as they do so, will eventually provide a means of replacing their contact information on existing service lists with their newer eRegistration contact information. A person may eRegister through the FERC Online page at
5. When a person submits an initial filing on behalf of one or more participants, that person will by default become the representative contact listed on the official service list for the party or parties on whose behalf he is filing. The contact person may, as part of the same filing or via a subsequent filing, identify, with names and e-mail addresses, additional contacts for one or more of the parties the person represents. These additional contacts, if they have eRegistered with the e-mail address that the filer provided for them, will also appear on the service list associated with their party or parties. If a person listed as a contact on a filing is not yet eRegistered, then the eService system will generate an e-mail to that contact informing him that in order to get on the official service list for the relevant proceeding, he will need to first eRegister. This e-mail invitation to eRegister to get on the service list will include a link to FERC Online. Once the person eRegisters, the system will automatically place that person as a contact on the service list for that proceeding. The eRegistration system will also require a postal address, which may be necessary in instances where e-mail is not a practical medium.
6. The official service list will initially include the names of all persons designated to receive service in the initial pleading, excluding protests, or in a tariff or rate filing, as well as the representatives of Commission trial staff.
7. Service lists will continue to be available via the “Service List” menu option on the FERC Online home page. The URL address to which the service list menu option links, as well as links to individual service lists, however, are subject to change. Therefore, persons accessing these service lists may need to change their bookmarks at times. Service lists found via the service list page will continue to be the official lists for all proceedings; therefore, persons required to serve documents in Commission proceedings will still be required to use the list available through the FERC Online page. In addition to including contacts' e-mail addresses, the new Web-based service list page on FERC Online will provide enhanced capabilities to search for service lists. As currently planned, eService will allow users to search for service lists by docket number, contact information, and/or organization name. Service lists will be available for viewing, downloading, and printing.
8. As noted above, with the eService initiative the Commission intends that the Secretary will serve Commission issuances electronically using contacts' eRegistered e-mail addresses maintained on the official service lists. Contacts will receive links to Commission issuances and notices contained in eLibrary, in the same manner in which the eSubscription system currently functions. The Commission intends to implement the eService system and begin electronic service of issuances by the Secretary in February, 2005, and will make a public announcement at the time it begins serving issuances electronically. The Commission anticipates that this change in procedures will provide faster and more reliable notice of Commission issuances, while producing some savings in mailing costs.
9. The Commission believes that the eRegistration system will provide reliability that is equivalent to postal mail-based service. Once a contact is registered, the system uses the contact's
10. To effectuate eService, the Commission is proposing to revise Rule 2010 to provide that, to be included on a service list, a person must be eRegistered. This requirement would apply only to persons who become eligible for inclusion on service lists after the effective date of the final rule. Rule 2010 also would be revised to provide that service by the Secretary will be by electronic means, unless such means are impractical, in which case service will be by postal mail.
11. As part of the proposed revisions, the Commission would provide that persons who are unable to register or to receive service electronically may apply for a waiver and register by a paper form. The procedures for paper registration are already provided in 18 CFR 390.3. In such cases, the Commission would manually enter the person's registration information in eService, and that person would continue to receive postal mail service, both from other participants and from the Commission. In addition, the Secretary has authority under § 390.4 to find filers to be exempt from eRegistration requirements where eRegistration offers no value to the participant.
12. As noted above, service by participants in Commission proceedings upon other participants currently is by postal mail or other physical delivery, unless the participants agree otherwise. The Commission in this notice is proposing to revise its service rules
13. One alternative approach would be to enable participants to serve documents by providing the link to the document in eLibrary. This would eliminate the necessity of attaching documents to e-mails. Such a change would require a revision to the Commission's rules to allow service on other participants to be made after the link became available. The Commission invites comments on this possible approach.
14. As a part of its responsibility to keep the public informed of regulatory activities that may be of interest to them, the Commission creates mailing lists in connection with various proceedings related to hydroelectric projects and natural gas facilities. These mailing lists include State and Federal agencies, members of Congress and other elected officials, Indian tribes, landowners, and other individuals and organizations that might have an interest in the relevant proceeding. Persons on a mailing list are given the opportunity, at their option, to continue to receive copies of certain documents issued by the Commission in the proceeding.
15. In the natural gas area, the process of sending out notices to mailing lists may be triggered by the environmental review process, or by certain other events. Once the process begins, the Commission establishes a mailing list from existing lists and other information maintained by Commission Staff, and information provided by the applicant. The Commission issues a notice, the content of which depends on the nature of the proceeding, and mails it to the persons and organizations on the mailing list. The notice explains that, if the recipient wishes to continue to receive Commission-issued environmental documents related to the proceeding, he must return a request in a mailer, which is provided. Recipients who do not return the mailer may be dropped from the mailing list.
16. Mailing lists in hydropower proceedings operate somewhat differently. The Commission typically sends out many notices of different events or stages of the process. Although some occur during the term of the license, most are related to license/relicense application processing and can occur both before and after the application is filed. Most of the recipients are official or institutional in nature, mainly Federal, State and local agencies, elected officials and Indian tribes, although non-governmental organizations and local citizens often participate. The number of recipients typically is much lower than in gas pipeline proceedings. Recipients generally are not expected to respond in order to continue receiving documents.
17. The Commission is proposing in both the gas and hydropower areas to provide notice, where possible, in electronic form through e-mail. It therefore requests comment on a system in which it would send notice, through postal mail as is currently done, at the beginning of a proceeding. The notice would provide a URL that would take the recipient to a Web page specific to the relevant mailing list, which would not be directly linkable from the Commission's Web site.
18. The purpose of the automated mailing list feature will be different from that of the Commission's eSubscription service. The latter is available to anybody who wishes to receive notification of all documents in a specific proceeding. Thus, an eSubscriber gets documents both received and issued by the Commission. The Commission's interest in eSubscription is to ensure that the service is operationally efficient and that it provides value to the subscriber. On the other hand, the Commission needs to keep track of the persons on the mailing list in a hydropower or natural gas facility proceeding, to maintain a record of whether persons who may be impacted by the proceeding are receiving notice of relevant developments.
19. As noted above, the Commission may need to send some documents to mailing list recipients by postal mail. For example, most environmental impact statements and environmental assessments include site-specific location maps and engineering drawings that can not appropriately be made available on the Internet. 18 CFR 388.113. The Commission's Internet site does, however, provide information on how to obtain copies of the material. Additionally, in such cases the Commission generally sends copies of the environmental documents to all mailing list members via postal mail. It may eventually be possible for the Commission to provide mailing list members with some form of electronic access to such documents.
20. Certain sections of the Commission's regulations contain requirements that the Commission provide notice of specified events to specified recipients. These recipients, along with others added by the Commission, make up the mailing list for the relevant notice provision. The Commission is proposing to revise these sections to provide that notice will be by electronic means if practical, and otherwise by postal mail. The affected provisions are as follows:
• § 5.4(b)(1)(iii)—Request for acceleration of license expiration date.
• § 5.8(e)(3)—Commencement of proceeding and scoping document, or approval to use traditional licensing process or alternative procedures.
• § 5.19(c)(2)—Tendering notice and schedule.
• § 16.6(d)(1)(iii)—Notification under section 15 of the Federal Power Act.
• § 16.9(d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)(ii)—License applications under sections 14 and 15 of the Federal Power Act.
• § 156.8—Applications for orders under section 7(a) of the Natural Gas Act.
• § 157.9—Applications for certificates of public convenience and necessity and for orders approving abandonment under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
21. The conversion of as much as possible of the Commission's mailing lists will serve two primary purposes. First, interested persons will receive notice more promptly than they would through postal mail. Second, the Commission will be able to reduce its costs significantly; mailing lists often number in the thousands. The Commission remains committed, however, to providing reasonable notice to persons who may be affected by its proceedings. Any technological advancements will have to be compatible with this goal.
22. Consequently, the Commission requests comment on the changes to its practices described above. In particular, the Commission would like to receive comments addressing the question whether the proposed revisions would provide adequate notification to affected persons and whether other methods might better achieve the Commission's stated purposes. The Commission also would welcome any comments identifying notice provisions not covered in this proposal that should be revised.
23. The Commission's regulations currently provide that, in documents filed via the internet pursuant to Rule 2003(c),
24. In connection with the above changes, the Commission also is proposing to require that a person or entity submitting a document that requires any form of verification to maintain a document with a physical signature on file until such time as the relevant proceeding is concluded. This measure should ensure that the purposes of requiring a statement under oath, such as ensuring that the person stating or swearing to the information understands the significance of his or her undertaking, continue to be met. Generally, the physically signed document should be retained at least until the time for all potential requests for rehearing and petitions for judicial review has expired, and all requested rehearing or review has been concluded. The person or entity retaining the signed copy should err on the side of caution, as premature disposal of such a document could result in negative inference with respect to its veracity.
25. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require OMB to approve certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule.
26. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
27. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
28. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due August 2, 2004. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM04-9-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.
29. Comments may be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at
30. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
31. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
32. From FERC's home page on the Internet, this information is available in the Commission's document management system, eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
33. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web site during normal business hours. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at 1-866-208-3676 (toll free) or 202-502-6652 (e-mail at
Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Natural Gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Electric utilities, Penalties, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By direction of the Commission.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend parts 5, 16, 156, 157, and 385, Chapter I, title 18,
1. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
2. Amend § 5.4 by revising paragraph (b)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Notifying appropriate Federal, State, and interstate resource agencies and Indian tribes, and non-governmental organizations likely to be interested, by electronic means if practical, otherwise by mail.
3. Amend § 5.8 by revising paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows:
(e) * * *
(3) Notifying appropriate Federal, State, and interstate resource agencies, State water quality and coastal zone management plan consistency certification agencies, Indian tribes, and non-governmental organizations, by electronic means if practical, otherwise by mail.
4. Amend § 5.19 by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(2) Notifying appropriate Federal, State, and interstate resource agencies, State water quality and coastal zone management plan consistency certification agencies, Indian tribes, and non-governmental organizations, by electronic means if practical, otherwise by mail.
5. The authority citation for part 16 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 791a-825r; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
6. Amend § 16.6 by revising paragraph (d)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Notifying the appropriate Federal and State resource agencies, State water quality and coastal zone management consistency certifying agencies, and Indian tribes, by electronic means if practical, otherwise by mail.
7. Amend § 16.9 by revising paragraphs (d)(1)(iii) and (d)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Notifying appropriate Federal, State, and interstate resource agencies, Indian tribes, and non-governmental organizations, by electronic means if practical, otherwise by mail.
(2) * * *
(ii) Provide the notice to appropriate Federal, State, and interstate resource agencies and Indian tribes, by electronic means if practical, otherwise by mail; and
8. The authority citation for part 156 continues to read as follows:
52 Stat. 824, 829, 830; 56 Stat. 83, 84; 15 U.S.C. 717f, 717f(a), 717n, 717o.
9. Revise § 156.8 to read as follows:
Notice of each application filed, except when rejected in accordance with § 156.6, will be published in the
10. The authority citation for part 156 continues to read as follows:
15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
11. Revise § 157.9 to read as follows:
Notice of each application filed, except when rejected in accordance with § 157.8, will be issued within 10 days of filing, and subsequently will be published in the
12. The authority citation for Part 385 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717z, 3301-3432; 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 28 U.S.C. 2461; 31 U.S.C. 3701, 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C. 1-85 (1988).
13. Amend § 385.2005 by adding paragraph (b)(3) and revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(3) Any requirement that a filing include or be supported by a sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit may be satisfied by compliance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1746, provided that the filer, or an authorized representative of the filer, maintains a copy of the document bearing an original, physical signature until after such time as all administrative and judicial proceedings in the relevant matter are closed and all deadlines for further administrative or judicial review have passed.
(c)
14. Amend § 385.2010 by redesignating paragraphs (g) through (i) as (h) through (j), adding new paragraph (g), and revising paragraphs (b), (c), (e)(1) and (f) as follows:
(b)
(1) A copy of any complaint on any person against whom the complaint is directed;
(2) A copy of any notice of tariff or rate examination or order to show cause, on any person to whom the notice or order is issued;
(3) A copy of any rule or any order by a decisional authority in a proceeding on any person included on the official service list, or applicable restricted service list, for the proceeding or phase of the proceeding, provided that such person has complied with paragraph (g) of this section.
(c)
(i) The name, address and, for proceedings commenced after February 1, 2005, e-mail address of any person designated for service in the initial pleading, other than a protest, or in the tariff or rate filing which is filed by any participant; and
(ii) The name of counsel for the staff of the Commission.
(2) Any designation of a person for service may be changed by following the instructions for the Commission's electronic registration system, located on its Web site at
(e)
(f)
(1) In the case of service by participants, by electronic means, unless such means are impractical or the parties agree otherwise, in which case service shall be made by:
(i) United States mail, first class or better; or
(ii) Delivery in a manner that, and to a place where, the person on whom service is required may reasonably be expected to obtain actual and timely receipt.
(2) In the case of service by the Secretary, by electronic means, unless such means are impractical, in which case service shall be made by United States mail.
(g)
Social Security Administration.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule creates a new administrative procedure requiring the Social Security Administration (SSA) to exclude representatives and health care providers who are convicted of fraud in the title II or title XVI disability programs administered by SSA or who are assessed civil monetary penalties from further participation in those programs for at least five years. The Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 amended the Social Security Act and requires SSA to create an administrative procedure for imposing penalties for false or misleading statements. This proposed rule will exclude those representatives and health care providers from participating in the programs and from serving as a representative payee.
To be sure your comments are considered, we must receive them by August 31, 2004.
You may give us your comments by: using our Internet site facility (
Charles M. Urban, Social Insurance Specialist, Professional Relations Branch, Office of Disability Programs, Office of Disability and Income Support Programs, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Room 4634 Annex Building, Baltimore Maryland 21235-6401,
There is no provision under the present law to exclude representatives and health care providers convicted of violations from further participation in Social Security programs. Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) law stipulate that anyone who knowingly or willfully makes, or causes to be made, any false statements or misrepresentations in applying for or continuing to receive Social Security or SSI payments shall be fined under title 18 of the U.S.C., imprisoned for not more than five years or both. Federal law also provides that any person who makes, or causes to be made, a statement or representation of material fact for use in any initial or continuing review of an individual's eligibility for Social Security disability benefits (title II) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) (title XVI) benefits that the person knows or should know is false or misleading or omits a material fact or makes such a statement with knowing disregard for the truth is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each such statement or representation plus up to twice the value of the amount paid fraudulently.
Fraud prevention is a top priority of the Social Security Administration. Professionals and others who play a role in helping individuals apply for Social Security and SSI have a special responsibility to maintain high standards of truthfulness. The evidence, opinion, advice and recommendations they provide are often crucial to the eligibility determination process. Thus, any such representative or health care provider who gives false or misleading information or otherwise commits fraud as part of the eligibility determination must be subject to serious penalties. This is especially the case since experience shows that some of these individuals commit fraud in many cases, thereby resulting in substantial sums of money being paid fraudulently to numerous recipients. For instance, in December 1997, a cooperative team, consisting of members from the SSA, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and the State Disability Determination Service (DDS), conducted a joint vulnerability review of an extended family in a small Georgia town. There were 181 members of this family, which spanned 4 generations, receiving benefits under title XVI of the Social Security Act (the Act). The same medical provider was the treating source and conducted consultative examinations (CEs) for many of these family members. The findings of the review resulted in the creation of Cooperative Disability Investigation (CDI) units in several major cities. The IG reported on February 3, 1999, in his testimony to the Subcommittee on Human Resources that the CDIs have produced data that illustrate the need to sanction third-party facilitators who engage in fraudulent activities, as many of the allegations involved third-party facilitators such as physicians, lawyers, interpreters, and other service providers. The 1998 GAO report, “Supplementary Security Income: Action Needed on Long-Standing Problems Affecting Program Integrity,” GAO/HHS-98-158, also found that the title XVI program was vulnerable to fraud and abuse.
We believe those representatives and health care providers who commit fraud or make false statements in any of the SSA administered programs should have administrative sanctions applied and be excluded from participating in any SSA program.
For these reasons, we propose to add a new section in both part 404 subpart P and part 416 subpart I to exclude representatives and health care providers who have committed fraud in any program administered by SSA from further participation in these programs for a period of at least five years.
Administrative sanctions are civil remedies that agencies impose under their own authority to protect their programs from transactions with untrustworthy individuals or entities
The administrative sanction we propose to use in this rule is exclusion. We define exclusion as removing an individual or entity from participation in a program for a designated period of time, or permanently, after a due process proceeding.
The principal objective of administrative sanctions activities will be to protect the integrity of the benefit programs SSA administers by excluding health care providers and representatives whose conduct indicates that they pose a threat to the integrity of SSA's programs. Excluded health care providers and representatives will be prohibited from serving as a representative payee. Excluded health care providers will be prohibited from supplying consultative examinations used to document the existence of impairments. All medical records produced by excluded parties resulting from treatment of individuals will be barred from use in the SSA disability evaluation process as of the date the exclusion takes effect. The public will be notified of the exclusion of health care providers and representatives. Medical records produced as result of treatment by the excluded providers will not be admitted as evidence to support a claim for benefits on account of disability.
This proposed rule establishes a minimum 5-year period of mandatory exclusion for one infraction, a 10-year exclusion for two infractions, and permanent exclusion for three or more infractions. The time period of an exclusion will be based on Federal fraud convictions and/or the imposition of administrative penalties under section 1129a of the Act. This proposed rule also adopts the practice of using specific factors to determine whether a permanent exclusion should be imposed. Program exclusion will be in addition to any penalties based on SSA's or another agency's actions. Individuals or entities subject to a proposed mandatory exclusion will receive a 30-day advance notice of the impending exclusion and may challenge SSA's action by submitting information and arguments on their behalf (see sec. 205(b) of the Act). The proposed exclusion can be withdrawn only if the basis for it no longer exists, such as when a conviction is reversed on appeal, or the proposed subject is incorrectly identified.
This proposed rule contains a limited waiver provision. The waiver would allow a party who meets the criteria for exclusion to continue to represent or provide health care to those who apply for benefits payable under title II and XVI of the Act only in cases where that party is the sole source of essential specialized services in the geographical area described in the proposed rule. This is being done so as not to disadvantage persons who live in sparsely populated rural areas. The Commissioner's waiver decision is not subject to review.
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on these proposed rules, we invite your comments on how to make these proposed rules easier to understand.
• Have we organized the material to suit your needs?
• Are the requirements of the rules clearly stated?
• Do the rules contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rules easier to understand?
• Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
• Could we improve the clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the rules easier to understand?
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed these proposed rules in accordance with Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13258.
We certify that these proposed rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they would affect only individuals. Thus, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided for in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not required.
These proposed rules contain reporting requirements as shown in the following table.
An Information Collection Request has been submitted to OMB for clearance. We are soliciting comments on the burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility and clarity; and on ways to minimize the burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments should be mailed or faxed to the Office of Management and Budget and to the Social Security Administration at the following addresses/fax numbers:
Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social Security.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Blind, Disability benefits, Public assistance programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we propose to amend subpart P of part 404 and subpart I of Part 416 of chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.
1. The authority citation for Subpart P of part 404 continues to read as follows:
Secs. 202, 205(a), (b), and (d)-(h), 216(i), 221(a) and (i), 222(c), 223, 225 and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a), (b), and (d)-(h), 416(i), 421(a) and (i), 422(c), 423, 425, and 902(a)(5); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, 2189.
2. Add a new § 404.1503b to read as follows:
(a)
(1) Has been convicted of a violation of section 208 or section 1632 of the Act;
(2) Has been convicted of any violation under title 18, U.S.C., relating to an initial application for or continuing entitlement to, or amount of, benefits under title II of the Act or an initial application for or continuing eligibility for, or amount of, benefits under title XVI of the Act; or
(3) Has been determined by the Commissioner to have committed an offense described in section 1129(a)(1) of the Act.
(b)
(1) Acting as a medical source who provides items or services for claimants or beneficiaries for the purpose of assisting claimants or beneficiaries to demonstrate that they are disabled;
(2) Being appointed or recognized as a representative of claimants or beneficiaries, in dealings with us, under subpart R of this part and subpart O of part 416; and
(3) Being selected in the future, or from continuing to act as a representative payee, under subpart U of this part and subpart F of part 416.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) The minimum length of time for an exclusion will be:
(i) Five years if an individual has been subject to one excluding event as stated in paragraph (a) of this section;
(ii) Ten years if an individual has been subject to two separate excluding events as stated in paragraph (a) of this section (one of those events may have occurred before December 14, 1999); and
(iii) Permanent exclusion if an individual has been subject to three or more excluding events as stated in paragraph (a) of this section (one or two of those events may have occurred before December 14, 1999).
(2) Notwithstanding the time periods set forth in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, we shall impose a permanent exclusion upon the first or second excluding event if two or more of the following exist:
(i) The criminal sentence is for five or more years of incarceration and/or probation;
(ii) The criminal sentence includes payment of restitution to us in an amount equal to or more than $30,000;
(iii) The criminal conviction includes five or more separate violations of law;
(iv) The assessment of civil monetary penalties is equal to or more than $50,000;
(v) The assessment of civil monetary penalties was based on five or more violations of law;
(vi) The individual has been convicted of fraud, making false statements, or misrepresentations in any other government program or has been administratively determined to have committed such acts;
(vii) A State licensing authority has revoked or suspended any license issued to the individual in the past for fraud, false statements or misrepresentations; or
(viii) The individual failed to comply with § 404.1503b(v).
(f)
(1) We will use all of the information that we have collected.
(2) Based on this information, we will prepare a proposed determination that explains the reasons why we believe the individual should be excluded. Once we determine that the individual meets the criteria for exclusion, we will provide the individual with notice of the date on which the exclusion takes effect. We will also notify the individual of his or her right to appeal the determination to an administrative law judge and his or her right to request waiver of the exclusion.
(3) The exclusion determination will become effective 35 days after it is issued unless a request for hearing is
(4) If the individual requests a waiver of the proposed exclusion, that individual must submit to us a written statement and any relevant documentary evidence as required in paragraph (h) of this section. The statement and evidence to support the request for waiver must be submitted within 30 days of receiving the notice of proposed exclusion. We assume that the individual will receive the notice five days after the date that the notice of proposed exclusion is mailed.
(g)
(1) The basis for exclusion;
(2) The effect of the exclusion;
(3) The proposed effective date of the exclusion;
(4) The proposed period of exclusion; and
(5) The procedure and timeframe by which the individual may object to the exclusion and submit a written statement and relevant documents.
(h)
(i)
(1) The request for a hearing must be made within 30 days of the date that the excluded individual receives the determination to exclude.
(2) The individual must submit, with the request for a hearing, all exhibits that the individual wants to be received into the record, a list of any witnesses whom the individual intends to call at the hearing, and a statement of the issues being raised.
(3) A failure to submit a timely request for hearing, evidence, or witness list may be excused for good cause. If there is an untimely submission of a request for hearing and the administrative law judge does not find that there is good cause to excuse the untimely filing, the administrative law judge will dismiss the request for hearing. If there is an untimely submission of evidence or a witness list and the administrative law judge finds that there is no good cause to excuse the untimely filing, the administrative law judge will not enter such evidence into the record and will not permit the witnesses to testify at the hearing.
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
(i) At the end of the minimum period of exclusion;
(ii) If the individual becomes the sole source of essential services in a community; or
(iii) If the judgement or conviction that is the basis of the exclusion is set aside or expunged.
(2) We may terminate the exclusion if we determine, based on the conduct of the excluded individual that occurred after the date of the notice of exclusion, or which was unknown to us at the time of the exclusion, that:
(i) There is no basis for a continuation of the exclusion; and
(ii) There are reasonable assurances that the types of actions that formed the basis for the original exclusion have not recurred and will not recur.
(3) Our decision regarding termination of exclusion is not subject to review.
(r)
(s)
(i) The facts and circumstances of the exclusion of the individual; and
(ii) The period that the exclusion will be in effect.
(2) We will also notify the state agencies of the fact and circumstances of each termination of exclusion made under paragraph (q) of this section. We will also provide the public with appropriate notice of individuals or entities who have been excluded from participation in our programs.
(t)
(u)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(i) A judgment of conviction that has been entered against the individual by a Federal, State, or local court, except if the judgment of conviction has been set aside or expunged;
(ii) A finding of guilt against the individual by a Federal, State or local court;
(iii) A plea of guilty or nolo contendere by the individual has been accepted by a Federal, State or local court; or
(iv) The individual has entered into participation in a first offender, deferred adjudication, or other arrangement or program where judgement of conviction has been withheld.
(v)
3. The authority citation for Subpart I of part 416 continues to read as follows:
Secs. 702(a)(5), 1611, 1614, 1619, 1631(a), (c), and (d)(1), and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1382, 1382c, 1382h, 1383(a), (c), and (d)(1), and 1383b); secs. 4(c) and 5, 6(c)-(e), 14(a), and 15, Pub. L. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1794, 1801, 1802, and 1808 (42 U.S.C. 421 note, 423 note, 1382h note).
4. Add a new § 416.903b to read as follows:
(a)
(1) Has been convicted of a violation of section 208 or section 1632 of the Act;
(2) Has been convicted of any violation under title 18, U.S.C., relating to an initial application for or continuing entitlement to, or amount of, benefits under title II of the Act or an initial application for or continuing eligibility for, or amount of, benefits under title XVI of the Act; or
(3) Has been determined by the Commissioner to have committed an offense described in section 1129(a)(1) of the Act.
(b)
(1) Acting as a medical source who provides items or services for claimants or beneficiaries for the purpose of assisting claimants or beneficiaries to demonstrate that they are disabled;
(2) Being appointed or recognized as a representative of claimants or beneficiaries, in dealings with us, under subpart R of part 404 of this chapter and subpart O of this part; and
(3) Being selected in the future, or from continuing to act as a representative payee, under subpart U of part 404 of this chapter and subpart F of this part.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) The minimum length of time for an exclusion will be:
(i) Five years if an individual has been subject to one excluding event as stated in paragraph (a) of this section;
(ii) Ten years if an individual has been subject to two separate excluding events as stated in paragraph (a) of this section (one of those events may have occurred before December 14, 1999); and
(iii) Permanent exclusion if an individual has been subject to three or more excluding events as stated in paragraph (a) of this section (one or two of those events may have occurred before December 14, 1999).
(2) Notwithstanding the time periods set forth in (e)(1) of this section, we shall impose a permanent exclusion upon the first or second excluding event if two or more of the following exist:
(i) The criminal sentence is for five or more years of incarceration and/or probation;
(ii) The criminal sentence includes payment of restitution to us in an amount equal to or more than $30,000;
(iii) The criminal conviction includes five or more separate violations of law;
(iv) The assessment of civil monetary penalties is equal to or more than $50,000;
(v) The assessment of civil monetary penalties was based on five or more violations of law;
(vi) The individual has been convicted of fraud, making false statements, or misrepresentations in any other government program or has been administratively determined to have committed such acts;
(vii) A State licensing authority has revoked or suspended any license issued to the individual in the past for fraud, false statements or misrepresentations; or,
(viii) The individual failed to comply with section 416.903b(v).
(f)
(1) We will use all of the information that we have collected.
(2) Based on this information, we will prepare a proposed determination that explains the reasons why we believe the individual should be excluded. Once we determine that the individual meets the criteria for exclusion, we will provide the individual with notice of the date on which the exclusion takes effect. We will also notify the individual of his or her right to appeal the determination to an administrative law judge and his or her right to request waiver of the exclusion.
(3) The exclusion determination will become effective 35 days after it is issued unless a request for hearing is filed as described in paragraph (i) of this section or a request for waiver is made.
(4) If the individual requests a waiver of the proposed exclusion, that individual must submit to us a written statement and any relevant documentary evidence as required in paragraph (h) of this section. The statement and evidence to support the request for waiver must be submitted within 30 days of receiving the notice of proposed exclusion. We assume that the individual will receive the notice five days after the date that the notice of proposed exclusion is mailed.
(g)
(1) The basis for exclusion;
(2) The effect of the exclusion;
(3) The proposed effective date of the exclusion;
(4) The proposed period of exclusion; and
(5) The procedure and timeframe by which the individual may object to the exclusion and submit a written statement and relevant documents.
(h)
(i)
(1) The request for a hearing must be made within 30 days of the date that the excluded individual receives the determination to exclude.
(2) The individual must submit, with the request for a hearing, all exhibits that the individual wants to be received into the record, a list of any witnesses whom the individual intends to call at the hearing, and a statement of the issues being raised.
(3) A failure to submit a timely request for hearing, evidence, or witness list may be excused for good cause. If there is an untimely submission of a request for hearing and the administrative law judge does not find that there is good cause to excuse the untimely filing, the administrative law judge will dismiss the request for hearing. If there is an untimely submission of evidence or a witness list and the administrative law judge finds that there is no good cause to excuse the untimely filing, the administrative law judge will not enter such evidence into the record and will not permit the witnesses to testify at the hearing.
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
(i) At the end of the minimum period of exclusion;
(ii) If the individual becomes the sole source of essential services in a community; or
(iii) If the judgement or conviction that is the basis of the exclusion is set aside or expunged.
(2) We may terminate the exclusion if we determine, based on the conduct of the excluded individual that occurred after the date of the notice of exclusion, or which was unknown to us at the time of the exclusion, that:
(i) There is no basis for a continuation of the exclusion; and
(ii) There are reasonable assurances that the types of actions that formed the basis for the original exclusion have not recurred and will not recur.
(3) Our decision regarding termination of exclusion is not subject to review.
(r)
(s)
(i) The facts and circumstances of the exclusion of the individual; and
(ii) The period that the exclusion will be in effect.
(2) We will also notify the state agencies of the fact and circumstances of each termination of exclusion made under paragraph (q) of this section. We will also provide the public with appropriate notice of individuals or entities who have been excluded from participation in our programs.
(t)
(u)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(i) A judgment of conviction that has been entered against the individual by a Federal, State, or local court, except if the judgment of conviction has been set aside or expunged;
(ii) A finding of guilt against the individual by a Federal, State or local court;
(iii) A plea of guilty or nolo contendere by the individual has been accepted by a Federal, State or local court; or
(iv) The individual has entered into participation in a first offender, deferred adjudication, or other arrangement or program where judgement of conviction has been withheld.
(v)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document requests information from the public on issues that the IRS may address in proposed regulations relating to the tax on amounts paid for communications services. All materials submitted will be available for public inspection and copying.
Written and electronic comments must be received by September 30, 2004.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-137076-02), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-137076-02), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically, via the IRS Internet site at
Concerning submissions generally, the Regulations Unit, (202) 622-3628; concerning the proposals, Cynthia McGreevy (202) 622-3130 (not toll-free numbers).
Section 4251 imposes tax on amounts paid for certain communications services, including local and toll telephone service. Section 4252(a) provides that local telephone service means the access to a local telephone system, and the privilege of telephonic quality communication with substantially all persons having telephone or radio telephone stations constituting a part of such local telephone system. Section 4252(b)(1) provides that toll telephone service includes a telephonic quality communication for which there is a toll charge that varies in amount with the distance and elapsed transmission time of each individual communication. Section 4252(b)(2) provides that toll telephone service also includes a service that entitles the subscriber, upon payment of a periodic charge (determined as a flat amount or upon the basis of total elapsed transmission time), to the privilege of an unlimited number of telephonic communications to or from all or a substantial portion of the persons having telephone or radio telephone stations in a specified area which is outside the local telephone system area in which the station provided with this service is located.
A tax on communications services has existed for over 100 years. The communications services that currently are subject to the tax are defined in section 4252, which was enacted in its current form in 1965. That section describes the local and long distance telephone service sold under the 1965 Federal Communications Commission rules. Existing Treasury regulations do not reflect the 1965 statutory change.
Sections 4252(a) and (b) define local and toll telephone service in terms of telephonic or telephonic quality communication, which means voice quality communication. Since 1965, numerous communications services have been developed and marketed, the methods of transmission have expanded, and the industry has been deregulated.
As a result of these changes, questions have arisen concerning the application of section 4251 to certain communications services that were not available in 1965. In response to these questions, Treasury and the IRS are considering proposing regulations that would revise the existing regulations to reflect changes in technology.
The test for taxability under section 4251 is whether a service for which an amount is paid is a communications service described in section 4252. The purpose of this ANPRM is to solicit information from the public on how present technology should be treated within the description of telephonic or telephonic quality communication in the definitions of local and toll telephone service under section 4252.
To ensure that any new regulations accurately reflect the state of today's communications services industry, Treasury and the IRS request that communications services providers and other interested parties submit comments and suggestions describing the various technologies, services, and methods of transmission currently available for transmitting data and voice communications and how they should be treated under section 4251.
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action for purposes of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.”
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.
The Coast Guard is withdrawing its notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the establishment of a permanent security zone for the waters of Bayou Casotte around the Chevron Pascagoula refinery.
This notice of proposed rulemaking is withdrawn on July 2, 2004.
Lieutenant (LT) Carolyn Beatty, Operations Department, Marine Safety Office, Mobile, AL, at (251) 441-5771.
On July 7, 2003, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled “Security Zone; Bayou Casotte, Pacagoula, MS” in the
Under the authority of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, the Coast Guard published a final rule on October 22, 2003 entitled “Facility Security” in the
This action is taken under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior; and National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Proposed rule; availability of environmental assessment; opening of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), (jointly, the Services), announce the availability of the environmental assessment for the Interagency Consultation on Regulatory Actions Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Counterpart Regulations, and the opening of a comment period on the environmental assessment. The Services are evaluating the environmental effects of establishing counterpart regulations pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The proposed counterpart regulations were published in the
We are opening a comment period to allow all interested parties to comment on the environmental assessment. Comments should be directed to the adequacy of the environmental assessment, and should not address issues related to the proposed rule itself. Comments previously submitted on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in the final rule.
Comments on this environmental assessment must be received by July 23, 2004, to be considered in the final decision.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
• E-mail:
• Mail: Assistant Director for Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, Virginia 22203; or Chief of the Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.
• Federal e-rulemaking Portal:
• Fax: Gary Frazer, FWS, 703/358-2229; or Phil Williams, NOAA Fisheries, 301/713-0376.
The FWS has agreed to take responsibility for receipt of public comments and will share all comments it receives with NOAA Fisheries and EPA. Comments and materials received in conjunction with this environmental assessment will be available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above FWS address.
Electronic copies of this environmental assessment may be obtained from the FWS World Wide Web site at:
Gary Frazer, Assistant Director for Endangered Species, at the above FWS address (Telephone 703/358-2171,
Counterpart regulations, as generally described at 50 CFR 402.04, provide an optional alternative to the existing section 7 consultation process described in 50 CFR part 402, subparts A and B. Counterpart regulations complement the general consultation regulations in part 402 by allowing individual Federal agencies to “fine tune” the general consultation framework to reflect their particular program responsibilities and obligations. The proposed counterpart regulations published in the
We considered two alternatives, as presented in the environmental assessment. Finalizing the proposed counterpart regulation is the preferred alternative. Adopting this preferred alternative would eliminate the requirement for EPA to obtain written concurrences from the Services whenever EPA makes a “not likely to adversely affect” determination (for listed species or critical habitats) for any FIFRA action. This preferred alternative would also result in a new alternative approach to formal consultations whenever EPA makes a likely to adversely affect determination (for listed species or critical habitats) for any FIFRA action. The “no action” alternative would leave the current section 7 consultation process in place.
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact statement on a proposal to thin approximately 10,557 acres (294 stands) of plantations across the Lakewood/Laona Ranger District of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests. Most plantations consist mainly of red pine with some white spruce and lesser amounts of white pine. Limited amounts of other species may also be found in some stands. The purpose of this proposal is to maintain and enhance the growth and vigor of trees within treatment areas while providing commercial timber products. No road reconstruction or new road construction is proposed. All activities would likely occur within six years of the decision date.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received within 14 days of the publication of this notice in the
Send written comments to Joel H. Skjerven, District Ranger, Lakewood/Laona Ranger District, 15085 State Rd 32, Lakewood, Wisconsin 54138, or e-mail your comments to:
Paul Sweeney, Project Manager, at the above address, or call (715) 276-6333.
This project is designed to promote tree growth and vigor over time by developing a wide range of stands over a large portion of the Forests and to allow for flexibility in applying treatments as needed between 2005 and 2011. Thinning these stands would:
• Provide terrestrial ecosystems in healthy, diverse, and productive conditions (Forest Plan, Goal 1.4, p. 1-3) by preventing insect and disease problems associated with overstocked stands and enhancing diameter growth for strength and protection against wind and snow damage.
• Contribute toward satisfying demand for wood products and special forest products through environmentally responsible harvest on National Forest System lands (Forest Plan, Goal 2.5, p. 1-6).
• Contribute toward the species and product output specified in the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, Appendix GG)
The need for treatment was identified when existing conditions were compared with Forest Plan desired future conditions. Based on data collected (field exam in 2003, project file), the identified red pine and white spruce plantations will either exceed or will be close to exceeding desired stocking levels within the next 10 years.
The project is designed to thin approximately 10,557 acres (294 stands) of plantations across the Lakewood/Laona Ranger District of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests. Most plantations consist mainly of red pine with some white spruce and lesser amounts of white pine. Limited amounts of other species may be found in some stands. The purpose of this proposal is to maintain and enhance the growth and vigor of trees within treatment areas while providing commercial timber products. All stands in the proposed action will be accessed from existing Forest roads; there will be no construction or reconstruction of roads.
Anne F. Archie, Forest Supervisor, 68 S. Stevens St., Rhinelander, Wisconsin 54501 is the Responsible Official.
The Forest Service must decide whether it will implement this proposal, an alternative design that moves the area towards the desired condition, or not implement any project at this time.
In April 2003, this vegetation management project was included in the Chequanegon-Nicolet National Forests' Schedule of Proposed Actions, which was posted on the Chequanegon-Nicolet National Forests' internet website and mailed to interested parties. In June of 2004, a scoping letter for the proposed vegetation management project was mailed to 677 individuals, groups, organizations, tribes, and Federal, State, and local agencies. The scoping letter was sent to those who expressed interest in the proposal, those who owned property adjacent to the project area, and to agencies with responsibilities for local resource management. This notice of intent invites additional public comment on this proposal and initiates the preparation of the environmental impact statement. Due to the extensive scoping effects already conducted, no scoping meeting is planned. The public is encouraged to take part in the planning process and to visit with Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior to the decision. While public participation is this analysis is welcome at any time, comments received within 14 days of the publication of this notice will be especially useful in the preparation of the draft environmental impact statement. The scoping process will include identification of potential issues, in depth analysis of significant issues, development of alternatives to the proposed action, and determination of potential environmental effects of the proposal and alternatives.
Two preliminary issues have been identified for this proposal as follows: (1) Thinning and associated activities in stands along segments of the National Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational (WSR) Peshtigo River and North Branch Peshtigo River could adversely affect
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. The public is encouraged to take part in the process and is encouraged to visit with Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior to the decision. The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed vegetation management activities.
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act 15 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meetings.
Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393), the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest's Madison-Beaverhead Resource Advisory Committee will meet on Thursday, July 22, 2004, from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. in Alder, Montana, and on Tuesday, August 24, 2004, in Dillon, Montana, for business meetings. The meetings are open to the public.
The meeting dates are:
1. July 22, 2004, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., Alder, MT.
2. August 24, 3004, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., Dillion, MT.
The meeting locations are:
1. Alder—Fire Department Hall, south of Highway 287, Alder, MT 59710.
2. Dillion—4H Building, Beaverhead County Fairgrounds, Railroad Street, Dillion, MT 59725.
Thomas K. Reilly, Designated Forest Official (DFO), Forest Supervisor, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National forest, at (406) 683-3973.
Agenda topics for these meetings include hearing and deciding on proposals for projects to fund under Title II of Pub. L. 106-393, hearing public comments, and other business. If the meeting locations change, notice will be posted in local newspapers, including the Dillon Tribune and the Montana Standard.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-3259.
Sheryl D. Kennerly, (703) 603-7740.
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions. If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in the notice for each service will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.
2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.
The following services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to Procurement List.
This action adds to the Procurement List services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-3259.
Sheryl D. Kennerly, (703) 603-7740.
On January 16, and May 7, 2004, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (69 FR 2656, and 25543/44) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following services are added to the Procurement List:
This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective
U.S. Census Bureau.
Due to the large number of surveys in the CIR program, for clearance purposes, the CIR surveys are divided into “waves.” One wave is resubmitted for clearance each year. Mandatory and voluntary surveys historically have been divided into separate clearance requests, making two separate clearance requests each year and six clearance requests in total for the CIR program. We are now combining the mandatory and voluntary surveys of each wave into one clearance request, reducing the total number of clearance requests from six to three, and the number of OMB submissions annually from two to one. Therefore, we are incorporating the burden hours currently contained in 0607-0206 into this request and discontinuing that clearance.
Primary users of these data are government agencies, business firms, trade associations, and private research and consulting organizations. The Federal Reserve Board uses CIR data in its monthly index of industrial production as well as its annual revision to the index. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) use the CIR data in the estimate of components of gross domestic product (GDP) and the estimate of output for productivity analysis, respectively. Many government agencies, such as the International Trade Commission, Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Energy, Federal Aviation Administration, BEA, and International Trade Administration use the data for industrial analysis, projections, and monitoring import penetration. Private business firms and organizations use the data for trend projections, market analysis, product planning, and other economic and business-oriented analysis. Since the CIR program is the sole, consistent source of information regarding specific manufactured products in the intercensal years, the absence thereof would severely hinder the Federal Government's ability to measure and monitor important segments of the domestic economy, as well as the effect of import penetration.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Susan Schechter, OMB Desk Officer either by fax (202-395-7245) or e-mail (
U.S. Census Bureau.
Changes in capacity utilization are considered important indicators of investment demand and inflationary pressure. For these reasons, the estimates of capacity utilization are closely monitored by government and private policy makers.
The survey collects the value of fourth quarter production and the value of production that could have been achieved if operating under “full production” and “emergency production” levels. The ratios of the actual to the full and emergency production levels are the basis of the estimates of capacity utilization. The survey also collects information by shift on work patterns at actual production and full production levels.
Government and private economists, defense and emergency planners and
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Susan Schechter, OMB Desk Officer either by fax (202-395-7245) or e-mail (
Proposed collection; comment request.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506 (2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 31, 2004.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; Phone number: (202) 482-0266; e-mail:
Request for additional information or copies of the information collection should be directed to: Erin Schumacher, SABIT, Department of Commerce, FCB 4100W, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, Phone number: (202) 482-0073; Fax number: (202) 482-2443, e-mail:
The U.S. Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration, in collaboration with the International Fund for Ireland (IFI), has established the American Management & Business Internship Training (AMBIT) Program. AMBIT provides one-week to six-month training programs for managers and technical experts from Northern Ireland and the Border Counties of Ireland, thereby improving their skills while enhancing U.S. commercial opportunities in the region. AMBIT was launched in 1995 to demonstrate America's interest in supporting the peace process by encouraging economic development in Northern Ireland and the Six Border Counties of Ireland.
The U.S. Department of Commerce words in partnership with the IFI, an organization established in 1986 by the British and Irish Governments to promote economic/social progress and to encourage contact, dialog, and reconciliation in the region. The United States, the European Union, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand contribute to the IFI budget.
Applications are sent to U.S. companies and intern candidates via facsimile, email or mail upon request by a delegated agency of the IFI. Feedback surveys are given to participating U.S. companies and interns at the completion of programs.
Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have the practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including the hours and costs) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques of forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of decision of the Court of International Trade.
On June 18, 2004, the Court of International Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) redetermination to subject Polyplex Corporation Limited (Polyplex) to the antidumping duty (AD) order on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET film) from India.
June 28, 2004.
Howard Smith or Jeffrey Pedersen at (202) 482-5193 or (202) 482-2769, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 4 Import Administration, Room 1870, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
In the investigative stage of this proceeding, the Department excluded Polyplex, a company with an AD margin greater than
On August 11, 2003, the Department issued its
In
On March 3, 2004, the Department issued its second
In its decision in
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
July 2, 2004.
Charles Riggle at (202) 482-0650 or David Layton at (202) 482-0371, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department of Commerce (the Department) to complete the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order or finding for which a review is requested and the final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary results to a maximum of 365 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order or finding for which a review is requested and for the final results to 180 days (or 300 days if the Department does not extend the time limit for the preliminary results) from the date of publication of the preliminary results.
On August 1, 2003, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order.
On September 30, 2003, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain small diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line and pressure pipe from Romania, covering the period August 1, 2002, through July 31, 2003 (68 FR 56262). On March 31, 2004, the Department published a notice of
We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review within the current partially extended time limit due to the complex nature of this review as discussed in the previous extension notice (69 FR 16893). We require additional time to address these matters through the gathering and verification of certain information.
Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results by an additional 30 days until no later than August 30, 2004. We intend to issue the final results of review no later than 120 days after publication of the preliminary results notice.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of final results of full sunset review of countervailing duty order of Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy.
On August 1, 2003, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty order on Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy (68 FR 45219). Because we find that the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail is
Hilary Sadler, Esq. or Martha Douthit, Office of Policy, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4340 or (202) 482-5050.
The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews are set forth in Section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), and 19 CFR 351.218. Guidance on methodological and analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98:3—
For purposes of this review, the product covered is Stainless Steel Wire Rod (“SSWR”) from Italy. Certain stainless steel wire rod (SSWR or subject merchandise) comprises products that are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled and/or descaled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils, that may also be coated with a lubricant containing copper, lime or oxalate. SSWR is made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. These products are
SF20T:
Carbon—0.05 max
Manganese—2.00 max
Phosphorous—0.05 max
Sulfur—0.15 max
Silicon—1.00 max
Chromium—19.00/21.00
Molybdenum—1.50/2.50
Lead—added (0.10/0.30)
Tellurium—added (0.03 min)
K-M35FL:
Carbon—0.015 max
Manganese—0.40 max
Phosphorous—0.04 max
Sulfur—0.03 max
Silicon—0.70/1.00
Chromium—12.50/14.00
Nickel—0.30 max
Lead—added (0.10/0.30)
Aluminum—0.20/0.35
The products covered by this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
On September 15, 1998, the Department published the countervailing duty order on SSWR from Italy.
The Department received substantive responses from Carpenter Technology Corporation,
In the
On April 21, 2004, the Department received identical case briefs from the GOI and the EC.
Because CAS has been excluded from the original order as a result of the Section 129 determination and is therefore no longer an interested party in this sunset proceeding, its comments will not be addressed. In addition, any comments submitted by Carpenter Technology, the EC, and the GOI pertaining to CAS or to programs specific to CAS have been rendered moot by CAS’s exclusion and will not be addressed.
All issues raised in this case are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated June 27, 2004, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the finding were to be revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in room B-099 of the main Commerce Building.
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at
Under section 751(d)(2) of the Act, in the case of a sunset review, the Department will revoke a countervailing duty order unless it determines that the countervailable subsidy would be likely to continue or recur, and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) determines that material injury would be likely to continue or recur. Based on the Department's analysis of the subsidy programs at issue in this case, we have determined that the level of subsidization likely to prevail, were the order revoked, is below the
As discussed in section III.B of the
This five-year (“sunset”) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Minority Business Development Agency, Department of Commerce.
Notice of meeting.
The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) publishes this notice to announce that the President's Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (Commission) will be holding a public meeting to seek testimonies from individuals and organizations on ways to provide equal economic opportunities for full participation of Asian American and Pacific Islander businesses in our free market economy where they may be underserved.
The public meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 20, 2004; 1 p.m.-5 p.m. e.s.t. For members of the public who are interested in addressing the Commission, please submit your written requests by July 16, 2004. Requests for special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should be submitted to Mr. Erik Wang (
The public meeting will be held at: The Enterprise Center, 4548 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19139. For members of the public who are interested in addressing the Commission, please submit your request to Mr. Erik Wang, Office of the White House Initiative on AAPIs, Herbert C Hoover Building, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 5092, Washington, DC 20230, or by fax to (202) 219-8809.
For additional information about the Commission or the public meeting, please contact: Mr. Eddy Badrina or Mr. Erik Wang, Office of the White House Initiative on AAPIs, Herbert C Hoover Building, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 5092, Washington, DC 20230, Telephone (202) 482-3949.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the Commission's intent to conduct a public meeting on July 20, 2004. Agenda items will include, but will not be limited to: testimony from community organizations and individuals; testimony from federal agencies; administrative tasks; upcoming events; and comments from the public.
The purpose of the Commission is to advise and make recommendations to the President on ways to provide equal economic opportunities for full participation of Asian American and Pacific Islander businesses in our free market economy where they may be underserved and thus, improving the quality of life for approximately 14.5 million Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders living in the United States and the U.S.-associated Pacific Island jurisdictions, especially those who are most underserved.
Requests to address the Commission must be made in writing and should include the name, address, telephone number and business or professional affiliation of the interested party. Individuals or groups addressing similar issues are encouraged to combine comments and make their request to address the Commission through a single representative. The allocation of time for remarks will be adjusted to accommodate the level of expressed interest. Written requests must be mailed or faxed to The Office of the White House Initiative on AAPIs by July 16, 2004 (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Marine Reserves Subcommittee of the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold a meeting, which is open to the public.
The Marine Reserves Subcommittee of the SSC will meet Monday, July 19, 2004, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., and Tuesday, July 20, 2004, from 8 a.m. until business for the day is completed.
The meeting will be held at NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz Laboratory, 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060; telephone: (831) 420-3900.
Mr. Dan Waldeck, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (503) 820-2280 or toll free (866) 806-7204.
The purpose of the meeting is to review the
The Marine Reserves Subcommittee will provide the results of their review to the Council's Ad Hoc Channel Islands Marine Reserve Committee for their meeting in fall 2004. The draft CINMS document can be found at—
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the Subcommittee for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Marine Reserves Subcommittee action during this meeting. Subcommittee action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Subcommittee's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 820-2280 or toll free (866) 806-7204 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Salmon Technical Team (STT) will hold a work session, which is open to the public, to review proposed conservation objectives for Sacramento winter chinook and to begin compilation of an updated Historical Salmon Fishery Data document.
The work session will be held Wednesday, July 21, 2004, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., and Thursday, July 22, 2004, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The work session will be held at the Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220-1384.
Mr. Chuck Tracy, (503) 820-2280.
The purpose of the work session is to review a proposed harvest management matrix for Sacramento winter chinook; begin compilation of an historical summary of ocean salmon fisheries; and prioritize and schedule upcoming tasks.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the STT for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal STT action during this meeting. STT action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the STT's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a SEDAR Workshop for South Atlantic Snapper/Grouper Species.
The SEDAR process for the South Atlantic Snapper/Grouper Species consists of a series of three workshops: A data workshop, an assessment workshop, and a review workshop. As part of this series, a Review Workshop is being held for tilefish and snowy grouper.
The SEDAR Review Workshop for tilefish and snowy grouperwill take place July 26-30, 2004. The workshop will be held July 26, 2004, from 2 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., July 27-29, 2004, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and July 30, 2004, from 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.
The Review Workshop will be held at the Holiday Inn Center City, 230 North College Street, Charlotte, NC 28202; telephone: (704) 335-5400.
John Carmichael, SEDAR Coordinator; telephone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free 866/SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520.
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the SEDAR process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR includes three workshops: (1) Data workshop, (2) assessment workshop, and (3) review workshop. The product of the data workshop and the assessment workshop is a stock assessment report, which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment report is independently peer reviewed
The review workshop is an independent peer review of the assessment developed during the data and assessment workshops. Workshop Panelists will review the assessment and document their consensus opinions regarding assessment issues in a Consensus Summary Report. Panelists will summarize the assessment results in an Advisory Report.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council office (see
Commission on Review of Overseas Military Facility structure of the United States (Overseas Basing Commission).
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, section 552 of title 5 U.S.C., this serves as public notice of a meeting of the Commission on the Review of Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States. This Commission is established by Public Law 108-132 to provide Congress and the President with a thorough study and review of matters relating to the military facility structure overseas. The law requires the report to include a proposal for an overseas basing strategy to meet current and future DOD missions. A copy of the document to be discussed at the meeting, “Options for Changing the Army's Overseas Basing” can be downloaded from
The meeting will be held on July 14, 2004, at 10 a.m., local time.
The meeting will be held at the Congressional Budget Office, Ford House Office Building, room 483, 2nd & D Streets, SW., Washington, DC.
Mr. Wade Nelson, Public Affairs, (708) 204-0711.
Due to security considerations at the facility, attendees may be required to present a valid identification. The public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities.
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive requesting a list of importers who wish to import leno mesh fabric in Category 220.
Becky Geiger, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
Effective January 1, 2002, the United States ceased to apply quotas to bags of leno mesh fabric, classified in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) headings 6305, integrating this product into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. However, HTSUS heading 5803.90.3000, which includes the leno mesh fabric used to make such bags, continues to be subject to quota. This heading is in category 220 and is subject to a group limit when imported from China. U.S. manufacturers of bags of leno mesh fabric have been unable to obtain this fabric in sufficient quantities from domestic sources, and imports are currently unavailable due to the unavailability of quota. CITA has agreed that it is appropriate to increase the group limit to allow additional imports of leno mesh fabric. In order to issue visas for this fabric, the Government of China has requested the United States to identify importers that wish to import leno mesh fabric from China.
Importers who wish to import leno mesh fabric in Category 220 from China, and who therefore wish to be allocated a visa by the Government of China for that fabric, need to supply the following information to CITA by July 15, 2004.
Importer of leno mesh fabric, address, telephone number, fax number, E-mail address.
Leno mesh fabric bag manufacturer, address, telephone number, fax number. E-mail address.
Customs Broker for importation of leno mesh fabric, address, telephone number, fax number, e-mail address.
That information will then be supplied to the Chinese Government, which has requested this information for administrative purposes. Please send this information to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, room 3100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
This is to give notice, pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee, Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 section 10(a), that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's Agricultural Advisory Committee will conduct a public meeting on Wednesday July 21, 2004. The meeting will take place in the first floor hearing room of the Commission's Washington, DC, headquarters, Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581 from 2 to 5 p.m.
The agenda will consist of the following:
(1) Call to order and introductions
(2) Review of trends in futures industry and oversight
(3) Discussion of Federal speculative position limits for certain agricultural commodities
(4) Developments regarding various risk-management products for producers
(5) Other business
(6) Discussion of future meetings and topics
(7) Adjourn
The meeting is open to the public. The Chairman of the Advisory Committee, Commission Chairman James E. Newsome, is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will, in his judgment, facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Any member of the public who wishes to file a written statement with the Advisory Committee should mail a copy of the statement to the attention of: Agricultural Advisory Committee, c/o Chairman James E. Newsome, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, before the meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements should inform Chairman Newsome in writing at the foregoing address at least three business days before the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made, if time permits, for oral presentations of no more than five minutes each in duration.
For further information concerning this meeting, please contact Marcia Blase at 202-418-5050.
Department of Defense.
Notice.
Pursuant to the Information Security Oversight Office's
Mr. Robert Storer, 703-601-4722.
The following chart identifies the offices to which mandatory declassification review requests should be addressed:
OSD/JS—Washington Headquarters Services, Chief, Declassification and Historical Research Branch, Suite 501, 201 12th Street, Arlington, VA 22202.
Army—Department of the Army, Army Declassification Activity, ATTN: TAPC-PDD, Suite 509, 4600 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203-1553.
Navy—Department of the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, N09B11, RM 1D469, 2000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-2000.
Air Force—Department of the Air Force, 11 CS/SCSR (MDR), 1000 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1000.
Marine—Commandant of the Marine Corps, U.S. Marine Corps, 2 Navy Annex, Room 1010, Washington, DC 20830-1775.
DARPA—Defense Advance Research Project Agency, 3701 North Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA 22203-1714.
DCAA—Director, Defense Contract Audit Agency, ATTN: CPS, 8725 John J. Kingman Rd., Ste. 2135, Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-6219.
DIA—Defense Intelligence Agency, ATTN: D A N-1A, Rm E4-234, Washington, DC 20340-5100.
DISA—Defense Information Systems Agency, ATTN: Security Division, MPS 6, 5111 Leesburg Pike, Ste. 100, Falls Church, VA 22041.
DSS—Defense Security Service, Office of FOIA & Privacy, 1340 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 22314-1651.
DLA—Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DLA/DSS-S, 8725 John J. Kingman Rd., Ste. 2533, Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-6221.
NIMA—National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, 4600 Sangamore Rd., Mail Stop D-10, Bethesda, MD 20816-5000.
NSA—National Security Agency, Information Policy Office, DC323 Room S2CW113, Suite 6884, Bldg SAB2, 9800 Savage Road, Ft. George G. Meads, MD 20755-6248.
DTRA—Defense Threat Reduction Agency, ATTN: SCR, 8725 John J. Kingman Rd., Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-6201.
EUCOM—U.S. European Command (HQ USEUCOM), Attn: ECJ1-AX (FOIA Officer), SMSgt Greg Outlaw, USAF, Unit 30400, APO, AE 09131.
SOUTHCOM—U.S. Southern Command, Attn: Mr. Marco T. Villalobos, SCJ1-A (FOIA), 3511 NW 91st Avenue, Miami, FL 33172-1217.
SOCOM—U.S. Special Operations Command, Attn: Kathryn Meeks, SOCS-SJS-SI (FOIA), 7701 Tampa Point Boulevard, MacDill AFB, FL 33621-5323.
CENTCOM—U.S. Central Command, Attn: Jacqueline J. Scott, CCJ6-DM, 7115 South Boundary Blvd, MacDill AFB, FL 33621-5101.
NORTHCOM—U.S. Northern Command, HQNORAD, USNORTHCOM/CSM, Attn: Lynn Bruns, 250 Vandenberg Street, Suite B016, Peterson Air Force Base, CO 80914-3804.
JFCOM—U.S. Joint Forces Command, Attn: Ms. Joyce Neidlinpa, Code J024, 1562 Mitscher Ave, Suite 200, Norfolk, VA 23511-2488.
PACOM—U.S. Pacific Command, Attn: Maureen Jones, USPACOM FOIA Coordinator (J042), Administrative Support Division, Joint Secretariat, Box 28, Camp Smith, HI 96861-5025.
STRATCOM—U.S. Strategic Command, 901 SAC Blvd, STE 1C15, Offutt AFB, NE 68113-6653.
TRANSCOM—U.S. Transportation Command, Chief, Resources Information, Communications, and Records Management, Attn: TCJ6-RII, 508 Scott Drive, Bldg 1961, Scott AFB, IL 62225-5357.
Department of Defense.
Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Defense Science Board Task Force on Employment of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) will meet in closed session on July 12-13, 2004, Institute for Defense Analyses, 4850 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA. This Task Force will review the experimental program under development for the National Ignition Facility. NIF is a key component of the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA's) Stockpile Stewardship Program to maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing. The NIF is a 192-beam laser designed to achieve fusion ignition and produce high-energy-density condition approaching those of nuclear weapons. NNSA and the high-energy-density physics community have developed a plan for activation and early use of NIF which includes a goal to demonstrate ignition by 2010 and also supports high priority, non-ignition experiments required for stockpile stewardship. In this assessment, the task force will assess the proposed ignition and “non-ignition” high-energy-density experimental programs at NIF. Review the overall balance and priority of activities within the proposed plan and the degree to which the proposed program of NIF experiments supports the near and long term goals of stockpile stewardship and the overall NIF mission. Assess the potential for NIF to support the design and development of new weapons. Focus on the extent to which major stakeholders in NIF are effectively integrated into the plan.
The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will assess the proposed ignition and “non-ignition” high-energy-density experimental programs at NIF. Review the overall balance and priority of activities within the proposed plan and the degree to which the proposed program of NIF experiments supports the near and long term goals of stockpile stewardship and the overall NIF mission. Assess the potential for NIF to support the design and development of new weapons. Focus on the extent to which major stakeholders in NIF are effectively integrated into the plan.
In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and (4) and that, accordingly, these meetings will be closed to the public.
Department of Defense.
Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Defense Science Board Task Force on Employment of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) will meet in closed session on August 16, 2004, Institute for Defense Analyses, 4850 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA. This Task Force will review the experimental program under development for the National Ignition Facility. NIF is a key component of the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA's) Stockpile Stewardship Program to maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing. The NIF is a 192-beam laser designed to achieve fusion ignition and produce high-energy-density condition approaching those of nuclear weapons. NNSA and the high-energy-density physics community have developed a plan for activation and early use of NIF which includes a goal to demonstrate ignition by 2010 and also supports high priority, non-ignition experiments required for stockpile stewardship. In this assessment, the task force will assess the proposed ignition and “non-ignition” high-energy-density experimental programs at NIF. Review the overall balance and priority of activities within the proposed plan and the degree to which the proposed program of NIF experiments supports the near and long term goals of stockpile stewardship and the overall NIF mission. Assess the potential for NIF to support the design and development of new weapons. Focus on the extent to which major stakeholders in NIF are effectively integrated into the plan.
The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will assess the proposed ignition and “non-ignition” high-energy-density experimental programs at NIF. Review the overall balance and priority of activities within the proposed plan and the degree to which the proposed program of NIF experiments supports the near and long term goals of stockpile stewardship and the overall NIF mission. Assess the potential for NIF to support the design and development of new weapons. Focus on the extent to which major stakeholders in NIF are effectively integrated into the plan.
In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and (4) and that, accordingly, these meetings will be closed to the public.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice of authorization and exemption of schoolwide programs.
The U.S. Secretary of Education (the Secretary) authorizes a schoolwide program under Part A of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), to consolidate funds from Federal education programs that the Secretary administers and exempts the school from complying with many statutory or regulatory provisions of those programs, if the intent and purposes of the programs are met in the schoolwide program. This notice identifies which Federal education program funds and services may be incorporated in a schoolwide program and provides guidance on
Jacquelyn C. Jackson, Ed.D, Acting Director, Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3W202, FB-6, Washington, DC 20202-6132. Telephone (202) 260-0826.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (
A schoolwide program is a comprehensive reform strategy to improve the academic achievement of all students in the school, particularly the lowest-achieving students. Schoolwide programs grew out of research about what makes schools work for disadvantaged students. Repeated findings show that staff in highly successful high poverty schools develop and carry out comprehensive schoolwide reform strategies, establish safe environments that are conducive to learning, and support enriched instruction in an expanded core of subjects for all students. Over the years, researchers have documented that, when the entire school is the target of change, schools serving even the most academically challenged students can achieve success.
Section 1114 of Title I authorizes a school with a concentration of poverty of at least 40 percent to use funds under Title I, Part A, along with other Federal, State and local funds, to operate a schoolwide program and upgrade the entire educational program in the school in order to improve the academic achievement of all students, particularly the lowest-achieving students. This is in contrast to a Title I targeted assistance program, in which Part A funds may be used only for supplementary educational services for eligible children identified as being most at risk of not meeting State standards. The school operating a schoolwide program may also combine other Federal education funds (
There are three core elements of a schoolwide program. (1) A school operating as a schoolwide program must conduct a comprehensive needs assessment of the entire school to determine the performance of its students in relation to the State's challenging academic content and achievement standards. (2) Using data from its needs assessment, the school must then develop a comprehensive plan to improve teaching and learning in the school, particularly for those students farthest away from demonstrating proficiency on the State's academic content and achievement standards. The comprehensive plan must (a) include schoolwide reform strategies that are research-based and designed to strengthen the core academic program so that all students attain proficient and advanced levels of achievement; (b) provide for instruction by highly qualified teachers and contain strategies to attract them; (c) provide high-quality and ongoing professional development for staff and parents; (d) include strategies to increase parental involvement; (e) provide activities to ensure that students who experience difficulty attaining proficiency receive effective and timely additional assistance; (f) include plans for assisting preschool students in the successful transition from early childhood programs to elementary schoolwide programs; and (g) provide for coordination and integration of Federal, State and local services and programs. (3) A school operating a schoolwide program must annually evaluate the implementation of, and the results achieved by, the schoolwide program and revise the plan as necessary based on the results of the evaluation to ensure continuous improvement of students in the school. The final Title I regulations that were published in the
A school operating a schoolwide program is not required to identify particular students as eligible to participate in the schoolwide program, or demonstrate that the services provided with Title I, Part A funds are supplemental to services that would otherwise be provided. The school is also not required to maintain separate fiscal accounting records, by program, that identify the specific activities supported by those particular funds, but must maintain records that demonstrate that the schoolwide program addresses the intent and purposes of each of the Federal programs whose funds were consolidated to support the schoolwide program. Each State educational agency (SEA) must encourage schools to consolidate funds from Federal, State and local sources in their schoolwide programs, and must modify or eliminate State fiscal and accounting barriers so that these funds can be more easily consolidated.
A school that operates a schoolwide program may consolidate funds from other Federal education programs in addition to Title I, Part A funds to improve academic achievement throughout the school. Specifically, section 1114(a)(3)(A) of Title I authorizes the Secretary, through publication of a notice in the
Except as noted below and consistent with section 1114 of Title I and this notice, the Secretary authorizes a schoolwide program school to consolidate funds that the school receives from any Federal education program, administered by the Secretary, whose funds can be used to carry out activities in a public elementary or secondary school. This authority also extends to services, materials, and equipment purchased with those funds and provided to a public elementary or secondary school. To provide schoolwide program schools maximum discretion in using resources from Federal education programs to their best advantage, the Secretary encourages local educational agencies (LEAs), to the extent possible, to provide Federal funds directly to those schools, rather than only providing personnel, materials, or equipment. All consolidated funds and services must support the school's schoolwide plan.
This authority affords a schoolwide program school significant flexibility to better serve all students by improving the entire instructional program, rather than only providing separate services to specific target populations. The Secretary emphasizes that a school operating a schoolwide program must address the needs of all students in the school, particularly the needs of the lowest-achieving students who are members of the target population of any program that is included in the schoolwide program.
A schoolwide program school may not consolidate funds under Subpart 1
A schoolwide program school may consolidate funds under the following programs only as outlined below:
•
•
•
The Secretary notes that he does not administer the National School Lunch Program or Head Start programs. As a result, the authority to consolidate funds in a schoolwide program does not extend to those programs.
In addition, the authority to consolidate funds from other Federal programs in schoolwide program schools does not apply to funds that are allocated by formula to nonschoolwide program schools in an LEA. This is not an authority to redistribute funds among schools. Any redistribution of funds would have to be consistent with the authorizing statute.
Consistent with section 1114 of Title I, a school that consolidates and uses, in a schoolwide program, funds from any other Federal program administered by the Secretary, except Reading First, is not required to meet most statutory or regulatory requirements of the program applicable at the school level, but must meet the intent and purposes of that program to ensure that the needs of the intended beneficiaries are met. Such a school must be able to demonstrate that its schoolwide program contains sufficient resources and activities to reasonably address the intent and purpose of included programs, particularly as they relate to the lowest-performing students.
The school is not required to maintain separate fiscal accounting records, by program, that identify the specific activities supported by those particular program funds. It must, however, maintain records that demonstrate that the schoolwide program as a whole addresses the intent and purposes of each of the Federal education programs whose funds were consolidated to support it.
A school operating a schoolwide program must identify in its schoolwide plan the programs that have been consolidated and address how it intends to meet the intent and purposes of those programs.
The following examples illustrate how a schoolwide program can meet the intent and purposes of specific Federal education programs. An LEA should make similar determinations for all other programs it combines.
The intent and purposes of this program are to support programs that prevent violence in and around schools; prevent the illegal use of alcohol, tobacco and drugs; and involve parents and communities in efforts to foster a safe and drug-free learning environment that supports student achievement. A schoolwide program school may demonstrate that it has met these intent and purposes if the school has implemented drug and violence prevention programs and activities that are consistent with the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act principles of effectiveness, and are coordinated with other school and community-based services and programs.
The intent and purposes of this program are to support the operation of LEA programs that involve collaboration with locally operated correctional facilities to (1) carry out high-quality education programs to prepare children and youth for secondary school completion, training, employment, or further education; (2) provide activities to facilitate the transition of such students and youth from the correctional program to further education or employment; and (3) operate programs in local schools for children and youth returning from correctional facilities and programs that may serve at-risk children and youth. A schoolwide program school may demonstrate that it meets the intent and purposes of this program if its comprehensive schoolwide plan addresses the need to improve educational services and opportunities for the achievement of neglected or delinquent children, by, for example, providing transitional programming for students returning from institutionalization to further schooling or by creating other support systems to prevent these students from dropping out of school.
The intent and purposes of this program are to help ensure that children with limited English proficiency become proficient in English, develop high academic attainment in English, and meet the same challenging State academic content and achievement standards in the core academic subjects that all other children are expected to meet. Another purpose of this program is to increase the capacity of schools to establish, implement and sustain high-quality language instruction programs and English language development programs that assist schools in effectively teaching students with limited English proficiency. Title III, Part A is also designed to promote the participation of parents and communities of limited English
A schoolwide program may demonstrate that it meets these intents and purposes if it incorporates strategies that provide high-quality instruction for students with limited English proficiency in English in the core academic subjects that are designed to assist these students in attaining the same high academic content and achievement standards that all children are expected to meet. In addition, to meet the intents and purposes of this program, a schoolwide school must support the participation of the parents of limited English proficient students in English language instruction programs through the parent involvement component of the schoolwide program.
The intent and purposes of this program are to increase student academic achievement through strategies such as improving teacher and principal quality; increasing the number of highly qualified teachers, principals, and assistant principals in schools; and holding LEAs and schools accountable for improvements in student academic achievement.
A schoolwide program may demonstrate that it meets the intent and purposes of this program if the school's comprehensive plan contains activities and strategies that promote increased student achievement such as helping teachers and the principal or principals become more highly qualified through high-quality professional development; increasing the number of highly qualified teachers in the school through recruitment initiatives; and implementing initiatives designed to promote the retention of highly qualified teachers, such as teacher mentoring and support or other incentives.
To help facilitate the inclusion of students with disabilities, the 1997 Amendments to the IDEA, under Section 613(a)(2)(D) and 34 CFR 300.234(a), provided new flexibility to LEAs. The Amendments allow an LEA to use a portion of the funds received under Part B of IDEA for any fiscal year to carry out a schoolwide program under the ESEA, so long as students with disabilities included in such schoolwide programs receive special education and related services in accordance with a properly developed Individualized Education Program (IEP), and are afforded all of the rights and services guaranteed to children with disabilities under IDEA.
The intent and purpose of the IDEA is to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education designed to meet their individual needs. A schoolwide program may demonstrate that it meets the intent and purpose of this program by ensuring that, except as to certain use of funds requirements, all the requirements of the IDEA are met, and that children with disabilities are included in schoolwide activities.
High-quality professional development required for all staff and designed to result in improved learning outcomes for all children, including children with disabilities, is one example of a schoolwide activity that meets the intent and purposes of the IDEA. For example, a school may combine IDEA, Part B funds with other program funds for professional development activities that support the implementation of a comprehensive student assessment model aligned with student academic content and achievement standards that enables teachers of all core academic subjects to incorporate alternative assessment procedures in the instructional setting in order to diagnose student achievement and monitor student progress on an ongoing basis. Alternate assessment procedures might include individual reading inventories, writing samples, classroom observations, conferences, and self-assessments. Using this kind of professional development as a way of meeting the intent and purposes of the IDEA ensures that all students, regardless of their special needs, will benefit.
A school that consolidates funds from other Federal programs in its schoolwide program is not relieved of the requirements relating to—
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
There are requirements contained in the General Education Provisions Act and in the Education Department
In general, a schoolwide program school may consolidate funds it receives from discretionary (competitive) grants as well as from formula grants, except for Reading First as indicated earlier in this notice. If a schoolwide program school consolidates funds from discretionary grant programs, the school must still carry out the activities described in the application under which the funds were awarded. However, a schoolwide program school would not need to account separately for specific expenditures of the consolidated Federal funds.
Although not required, it is preferable that the applicant LEA or school indicate in its application for discretionary funds that some or all of the funds would be used to support a schoolwide program and describe its activities accordingly. Moreover, if authorized by the program statute, the Department or an SEA could include in its selection criteria for a particular program extra points for conducting activities in a schoolwide program school. For example, an SEA could include such points when awarding subgrants under the Even Start Family Literacy program, which requires an SEA to give priority to applicants that target services to families in need of family literacy services residing in areas with high levels of poverty, illiteracy, or other such need-related factors, including projects that would serve a high percentage of children who reside in participating areas under Part A.
The following examples illustrate how schoolwide program schools can consolidate and use discretionary grant funds by carrying out the activities described in the application under which the funds were awarded.
The intent and purposes of Adult Education and Family Literacy programs are to improve the basic and literacy skills of adults through high-quality research-based programs that will equip those adults to succeed in the next phase of their education and employment as demonstrated by meeting core performance indicators. An LEA receiving Adult Education and Family Literacy Act funds has the flexibility to determine how it will offer services. Some LEAs may decide to offer services at the district level; others may decide to offer services through schools, including them as part of a schoolwide program. A schoolwide school that combines Adult Education and Family Literacy funds must still carry out the activities described in the LEA's Adult Education and Family Literacy Act application under which the funds were awarded, including complying with the performance reporting and accountability requirements established by the State to meet the requirements of section 212 of the Act.
A schoolwide program school could incorporate adult literacy services in a number of ways,
If an LEA participates in a partnership that receives an Even Start discretionary subgrant, the approved project may be part of a schoolwide program as long as the LEA and its required partners carry out the activities described in the Even Start application under which the funds were awarded, including serving families with eligible adults and children generally under the age of eight. A schoolwide program school can consolidate and use Even Start discretionary grant funds by offering a four-component family literacy program that is an integral part of the overall instructional program of the school. This family literacy program must integrate high-quality, intensive, instructional programs based on scientifically based reading research (to the extent that research is available) in four areas: Early childhood education, adult literacy (adult basic and secondary-level education and/or instruction for English language learners), parenting education, and interactive parent and child literacy activities. While each eligible family that participates in these family literacy services must be most in need of the services for Even Start purposes, a schoolwide program could extend these services to other needy families as part of a comprehensive parent involvement strategy.
This notice does not apply to nonschoolwide program schools that participate in Title I. Those schools must comply with all statutory and regulatory requirements that apply to funds or benefits they receive. This notice also does not relieve an LEA from complying with all requirements that do not affect the operation of a schoolwide program. For example, to the extent an LEA is required under the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act to designate a homeless liaison to ensure, among other things, that homeless children and youth enroll and succeed in school, the LEA would not be relieved of this requirement by virtue of operating one or more schoolwide programs.
The Secretary intends to issue additional guidance on schoolwide programs in the near future. In addition, staff in the office of Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs, in conjunction with staff in the other affected Federal program offices, are available to assist LEAs and schools operating schoolwide programs to implement the authority contained in this notice. If LEAs or schools have specific questions, they should contact Jacquelyn C. Jackson, Ed.D, Director, Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs, as provided in the section
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
Notice of application.
TexMex Energy, LLC (TexMex) has applied for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests or requests to intervene must be submitted on or before August 2, 2004.
Comments, protests or requests to intervene should be addressed as follows: Office of Coal & Power Im/Ex (FE-27), Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350 (FAX 202-287-5736).
Xavier Puslowski (Program Office) 202-586-4708 or Michael Skinker (Program Attorney) 202-586-2793.
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On June 4, 2004, the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) received an application from TexMex to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico. TexMex is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Protama, S.A. de C.V. (Protama), a Mexican corporation that specializes in the development of energy projects. TexMex was formed by Protama for the exclusive purpose of purchasing power at wholesale within the United States for export to Mexico. TexMex is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business located in Mexico. TexMex does not own, operate or control any electric power generation, transmission or distribution facilities in the United States, nor is it affiliated with any owner of such facilities within the United States.
TexMex proposes to arrange for the delivery of electric energy to Mexico over the international transmission facilities owned by El Paso Electric Company, Central Power and Light Company, and Comision Federal de Electricidad, the national electric utility of Mexico. The construction of each of the international transmission facilities to be utilized, as more fully described in the application, has previously been authorized by a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended.
Comments on the TexMex application to export electric energy to Mexico should be clearly marked with Docket EA-294. Additional copies are to be filed directly with Guillermo Gonzalez G., c/o Protama S.A. de C.V., Tonala 44, Col. Roma, 06700 Mexico D.F., Mexico
A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and a determination is made by the DOE on whether the proposed action would adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above or by accessing the Fossil Energy Home Page at
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Savannah River. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Monday, July 26, 2004, 1 p.m.-6:30 p.m.; and Tuesday, July 27, 2004, 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m.
Newberry Hall, 151 Bee Lane, Aiken, SC 29803.
Gerri Flemming, Closure Project Office, Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office, PO Box A, Aiken, SC, 29802; Phone: (803) 952-7886.
If needed, time will be allotted after public comments for items added to the agenda, and administrative details. A final agenda will be available at the meeting Monday, July 26, 2004.
1. Pursuant to the Commission's Notice of Availability of Executive Summary and Index Templates, issued June 17, 2004, the Commission staff is hereby issuing instructions to all parties for filing Grandfathered Agreement (GFA) Information pursuant to the Commission's May 26, 2004 Order in the above captioned dockets.
2. Parties should review the instructions for the template before using it; the template contains macros that preclude use of the Save and Save As functions in Excel. Summary information should be submitted using the Commission's electronic filing system (eFiling link at
3. All submissions are due by 5 p.m. eastern time on June 25, 2004.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company's (Tuscarora) proposed 2005 Expansion Project. Tuscarora proposes to install and operate a new compressor unit at its existing Wadsworth Booster Station in Washoe County, Nevada, and construct and operate a new compressor station near the town of Likely in Modoc County, California.
This notice (NOI) is being sent to affected and adjacent landowners; Federal, State and local representatives and agencies; local newspapers and libraries; potentially interested Indian tribes; public interest and environmental groups; and parties to the proceeding. Government representatives and agencies are encouraged to notify their constituents of the proposed projects and encourage them to comment.
Additionally, with this NOI we
If you are a landowner receiving this NOI, you may be contacted by a representative of Tuscarora about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with State law.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” should have been attached to the project notice Tuscarora is required to provided to landowners. This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (
Tuscarora seeks authority to:
• Construct, install, own, operate and maintain a new 3,600 hp unit at its existing Wadsworth Booster Station at about MP 10.6 along Tuscarora's Wadsworth lateral, near its interconnection with Paiute's mainline, in Washoe County, Nevada; and
• Construct, install, own, operate, and maintain a new 8,000 hp compressor station at about MP 81.6 along Tuscarora's mainline near Likely in Modoc County, California.
The facilities proposed by Tuscarora would add up to 51,753 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) in firm transportation capacity to its system. This additional capacity is contracted to Southwest Gas
Tuscarora's Wadsworth Booster Station and Likely Compressor Station are located on privately owned lands. However, an existing access road to Tuscarora's Wadsworth Booster Station crosses lands owned by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation. The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the proposed facilities would affect a total of about 12 acres. Operation of the facilities would require about 3.8 acres total. About 2.5 acres would be used during construction of Tuscarora's new unit at the Wadsworth Booster Station, of which about 0.5 acre would be required for operation of the facility. Construction of Tuscarora's new Likely Compressor Station would affect about 9.0 acres, of which 3.3 acres would be used during operation of the facility. The land temporarily impacted during construction of these facilities would afterwards be restored to its previous condition and use.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this NOI, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues it will address in the EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the EA. To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the public participation section of this NOI.
Our independent analysis of environmental issues will be in the EA. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be published and mailed to Federal, State, and local agencies, affected and adjacent landowners, environmental and public interest groups, interested individuals and Indian tribes, local newspapers and libraries, and the Commission's official service list for this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission.
We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the environmental information provided by Tuscarora. This preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.
• Geology and Soils:
• Water Resources and Wetlands:
• Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation:
• Cultural Resources:
• Land Use, Recreation and Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources:
• Air and Noise Quality:
• Alternatives:
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission. You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative facility locations), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
• Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426;
• Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 3;
• Reference Docket No. CP04-344-000; and
• Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before July 30, 2004.
Please note that we are continuing to experience delays in mail deliveries from the U.S. Postal Service. As a result, we will include all comments that we receive within a reasonable time frame in our environmental analysis of this project. However, the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or interventions or protests to this proceeding.
If you do not want to send comments at this time but still want to remain on our environmental mailing list, please return the Information Request (appendix 3). If you do not return the Information Request, you will be taken off the mailing list.
We will also be conducting a site visit to the proposed location of Tuscarora's Wadsworth Booster Station and its proposed Likely Compressor Station, beginning on Monday, July 12, 2004.
Anyone interested in participating in the site visit should meet at the parking lot for the Best Western Airport Plaza Hotel, 1981 Terminal Way, Reno, Nevada 89502, at 12 p.m. (noon) on July 12, 2004. Participants must provide their own transportation. For additional
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an official party to the proceeding known as an “intervenor.” Intervenors play a more formal role in the process. Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive copies of case-related Commission documents and filings by other intervenors. Likewise, each intervenor must provide 14 copies of its filings to the Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy of its filings to all other parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding. If you want to become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene according to rule 214 of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.214) (
Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your environmental comments considered.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet Web site (
In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to the documents. Go to
1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission published in the
2. On June 10, 2004, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) filed a joint motion for an extension of the deadlines for submitting the first two quarterly financial reports required by the Commission in the Final Rule. EEI and INGAA state that the software needed to file the new quarterly financial reports is not expected to be released for general use until June 30, 2004, which will leave filers only nine days from the current July 9, 2004 filing date. Additionally, they state that additional time would be needed for filers to familiarize themselves with the software, prepare electronic copies of the quarterly reports, have the reports internally reviewed, approved and filed.
3. At a minimum EEI and INGAA request an extension of the filing deadline for first quarterly report to August 23, 2004, and an extension of the filing deadline for the second quarterly report to September 23, 2004. They state these dates would space the first FERC reports two weeks away from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's August 9, 2004 deadline, and space the two FERC reports a month apart.
4. Based on the above, filing dates for the first two quarterly financial reports for all respondents are extended as shown in the tables below:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before August 31, 2004.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number SFUND-2004-0008, to EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to
Kirby Biggs, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-8506; fax number: 703-308-2358; e-mail address:
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number SFUND-2004-0008, which is available for public viewing at the Superfund Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Superfund Docket is (202) 566-0276. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at
Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA within 60 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's
The EPA would like to solicit comments to: (i) 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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) 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,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Correction notice.
The EPA issued a notice in the
Mr. Ray Vogel, Information Transfer and Program Implementation Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code C304-04, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone (919) 541-3153; fax number: (919) 541-5509; and e-mail address:
This notice corrects omissions in the May 17 notice concerning how to submit written comments to the task force on the performance of the title V operating program, which may affect those who planned to submit comments, but did not plan to attend the task force meetings. Specifically, the May 17 notice did not mention the EDOCKET system for submitting comments electronically. As a result, the public was not informed that their comments would be made available to others over the internet. The notice also did not include the correct EDOCKET number. The correct number is OAR-2004-0075. Finally, the notice did not specify when the comment period would be open for this action. The comment period will open starting June 15, 2004, and will close March 1, 2005.
The EPA's electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. Please note: EPA's policy is to not edit your comment; therefore, any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included in the official public docket. To submit a comment through EDOCKET, go to
Comments may also be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
If you submit a disk or CD-ROM, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, e-mail address, or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD-ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD-ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment. If you submit mail, please enclose two copies. Send to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0075.
Deliveries are accepted only between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. eastern standard time (e.s.t.), Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
Fax your comments to the EPA Docket Center at (202) 566-1741, Attention Docket ID. No. OAR-2004-0075.
The EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OAR-2004-0075. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Room 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
You may access this
Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean Air Act and section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at (202) 564-7167.
An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in the
EPA has no objections to the proposed treatment strategy.
This document is available on the Internet at:
This document is available on the Internet at:
This document is available on the Internet at:
Revision of FR Notice Published on 6/4/2004: CEQ Comment Period Ending 6/28/2004 has been Extended to 7/6/2004.
Contact: Christopher Rogers (301) 713-2347. Correction Website Address:
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
11:30 a.m., Tuesday, June 29, 2004. The business of the Board requires that this meeting be held with less than one week's advance notice to the public, and no earlier announcement of the meeting was practicable.
Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.
Closed.
1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees.
2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.
Michelle A. Smith, Director, Office of Board Members; 202-452-2955.
You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the intent to fund fiscal year (FY) 2004 funds for a cooperative agreement program to support The Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) in the development and sustainment of effective public healthy policies and programs to prevent and control chronic diseases, promote healthy behaviors, and strengthen the outreach and capacity of state health agencies. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this program is 93.283.
Assistance will be provided only to ASTHO. ASTHO is the only national non-profit organization that represents all state and territorial public health officials. ASTHO was created specifically to represent this group of state agencies to the federal government and other national organizations and is unique in its role as a liaison among these officials. It has served as a capacity-building organization in public health matters for many years and one of its major objectives is the sharing of information among state health departments. Historically, ASTHO has
Approximately $555,000 is available in FY 2004 to fund this award. It is expected that the award will begin on or before August 1, 2004, and will be made for a 12-month budget period within a project period of up to three years. Funding estimates may change.
For general comments or questions about this announcement, contact: Technical Information Management, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, Telephone: 770-488-2700.
For technical questions about this program, contact: Jennifer Tucker, 4770 Buford Highway, MS K-40, Atlanta, GA 30304, Telephone: 770-488-6454, E-mail:
This program is authorized under Sections 301(a) and 317(k)(2) of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 241 and 42 U.S.C. 247b(k)(2).
This program addresses the “Healthy People 2010” focus area of HIV infection, CDC's Government Performance and Results Act Performance Plan, the goals of CDC's HIV Prevention Strategic Plan through 2005 at
Measurable outcomes of the program will be in alignment with one (or more) of the following performance goal(s) for the National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention:
1. Strengthen the capacity to develop and implement effective HIV prevention interventions.
2. Increase the proportion of HIV infected individuals who know they are infected.
3. Increase the proportion of HIV infected people who are linked to appropriate prevention, care, and treatment services.
4. Decrease the number of persons at high risk for acquiring or transmitting HIV infection.
Priority funding considerations require the applicant to submit an application that includes a plan to enhance the ability of CBOs funded under program announcement 04064 to implement and maintain their PEMS, by delivering training and technical assistance. No other application preference factors will be applied to the review and selection process. The plan must address each of the following performance goals:
• Strengthen the capacity of community based organizations and health departments to develop and implement effective HIV prevention interventions by training them to use a monitoring system that provides feedback data for program improvement and modification.
• Increase the proportion of HIV infected individuals who know they are infected by training community based organizations and health departments to collect client-level data through a monitoring system that allows tracking and referral elements to be gathered.
• Increase the proportion of HIV infected people who are linked to appropriate prevention, care, and treatment services by training community based organizations and health departments to effectively use the tracking and referral capabilities of a national monitoring system.
• Decrease the number of persons at high risk for acquiring or transmitting HIV infection by training community based organizations and health departments to assess data collected by a monitoring system for prevention program improvement.
Applications must ensure quality programming and measurement of progress based on core performance indicators specific to Focus Area 2 through:
1. Measuring the proportion of CDC-funded CBOs receiving program evaluation monitoring system training.
2. Measuring the proportion of CDC-funded health departments receiving program evaluation monitoring system training.
3. Measuring the proportion of CBOs that report agreement with the timeliness in completion of program evaluation monitoring system technical assistance and training.
4. Measuring the proportion of health departments that report agreement with the timeliness in completion of program evaluation monitoring system technical assistance and training.
5. Measuring the proportion of CBO and health department technical assistance and training action plans completed according to scheduled delivery in a timely manner.
6. Measuring the proportion of CBOs that report agreement that program evaluation monitoring system technical assistance or training met their needs.
7. Measuring the proportion of health departments that report agreement that program evaluation monitoring system technical assistance or training met their needs.
8. Measuring the proportion of CDC-funded CBOs, by racial/ethnic minority population served, receiving program evaluation monitoring system needs assessments.
Applicants process objectives and activities considered responsive to Focus Area 2 that must be addressed in the program plan are:
a. Provision of ongoing program evaluation monitoring system technical assistance and training for CBOs in the evaluation of effective HIV prevention interventions for high risk seronegatives and HIV-positive racial/ethnic minority individuals using the PEMS software.
b. Provision of program evaluation monitoring system technical assistance and training that measures the diffusion of effective behavioral interventions, including training, cultural adaptation of curricula, and promotion of “boxed” interventions from CDC.
c. Provision of program evaluation monitoring system technical assistance and training that measures the expected outcomes of regional consultant pool capacity building assistance activities.
d. Provision of program evaluation monitoring system technical assistance and training for CBOs and health departments to help them deliver effective and efficient prevention interventions.
These activities must be conducted in collaboration with the CDC, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention. These activities may benefit from collaboration with Deloitte and ORC/MACRO, and other contractors working to ensure that CBOs have the skills and access to technical assistance necessary to implement and maintain PEMS.
Activities: Specific activities that must be conducted by applicants are as follows:
A. Use of logic modeling for program planning and conducting program evaluation monitoring system technical assistance and training.
B. Inclusion of input from CBOs and health departments about the proposed program evaluation monitoring system technical assistance and training, including people living with HIV/AIDS.
C. Incorporation of cultural competency and linguistic and educational appropriateness into all program evaluation monitoring system technical assistance and training.
D. Collaboration with CDC, CDC-funded CBA and Technical Assistance (TA) providers, and contractors to plan and deliver program evaluation monitoring system technical assistance and training that is (1) consistent with CDC expectations (as provided in other trainings for grantees); and (2) to avoid duplication of services (as provided by other contractors).
E. Undertake a systems approach in the delivery of a nationally structured program evaluation monitoring system technical assistance and training.
F. Implement a plan for developing and maintaining ongoing relationships with CBOs and health departments.
G. Develop protocols that respond to reactive requests for program evaluation monitoring system technical assistance and training following procedures provided by CDC.
H. Refer all other capacity building assistance requests, which fall outside of program evaluation monitoring system technical assistance and training to the CDC capacity building assistance coordinator for appropriate assignment.
I. Participate in a CDC-coordinated capacity building assistance network to enhance communication, coordination, cooperation, and training.
J. Identify the internal training needs of program evaluation monitoring system technical assistance and training program and staff.
K. Implement a quality assurance strategy that ensures the delivery of high quality program evaluation monitoring system technical assistance and training services.
L. Develop a strategy for marketing program evaluation monitoring system technical assistance and training services.
M. Report planned program evaluation monitoring system technical assistance and training events to the Capacity Building Branch (CBB) Training Calendar for dissemination to CBOs and health departments to be provided by CDC.
N. Facilitate the dissemination of information about program evaluation monitoring system through peer-to-peer interactions, meetings, workshops, conferences, and communications with CDC project officers.
In a cooperative agreement, CDC staff is substantially involved in the program activities, above and beyond routine grant monitoring.
CDC Activities for this program are as follows:
A. Providing consultation and technical assistance in designing, planning, developing, operating, and evaluating activities (such as progress reporting, submitting information for the training calendar) based on CDC's standards and expectations. CDC may provide consultation and technical assistance both directly from CDC and indirectly through prevention partners, such as health departments, national and regional minority partners, CBA partners, trainers, contractors, and other national organizations.
B. Monitoring the performance of program and fiscal activities through progress reports, data reporting, site visits, conference calls, and compliance with federally mandated requirements, such as protection of client privacy.
C. Assisting in the development of collaborative efforts with state and local health departments, HIV prevention community planning groups, CBOs that receive direct funding from CDC, and other federally supported organizations providing HIV/AIDS services.
D. Conducting an overall evaluation of the program.
Throughout the project period, CDC's commitment to continuation of awards will be conditioned on the availability of funds, evidence of satisfactory progress by the recipient (as documented in required reports), and the determination that continued funding is in the best interest of the Federal Government.
Eligibility is restricted to funded organizations under Program Announcement 04019 who currently have received awards serving African American, Latino/Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, or American Indian/Alaska Native HIV prevention providers and stakeholders in Focus Area 2, Strengthening HIV Prevention Interventions.
Matching funds are not required for this program.
If you request a funding amount greater than the total funding amount, your application will not be eligible for review. You will be notified that you did not meet the submission requirements.
Title 2 of the United States Code Section 1611 states that an organization described in Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible to receive Federal funds constituting an award, grant, or loan.
To apply for this funding opportunity use application form PHS 5161. Forms are available on the CDC Web site, at the following Internet address:
If you do not have access to the Internet, or if you have difficulty accessing the forms online, you may contact the CDC Procurement and Grants Office Technical Information Management Section (PGO-TIM) staff at: 770-488-2700. Application forms can be mailed to you.
• Maximum number of pages: 12 pages (excluding budget, appendices and attachments). If your narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first 12 pages which are within the page limit will be reviewed.
• Font size: 12 point unreduced.
• Single spaced.
• Paper size: 8.5 by 11 inches.
• Page margin size: One-inch.
• Printed only on one side of page.
• Held together only by rubber bands or metal clips; not bound in any other way.
Your narrative should address activities to be conducted over the entire project period, and must include the following items in the order listed:
Provide a one-page abstract summarizing your proposed activities for the next 8 months (August through March). Include a description of your overall strategy or approach to accomplish the goals and activities of this supplemental announcement.
1. Describe your specific plan for accomplishing the goals and activities of this supplemental announcement. Include objectives for all the activities listed under the “Purpose” section. List specific, time-phased, realistic and measurable objectives.
2. Describe program activities designed to meet proposed objectives, indicate the approximate dates by which activities will be accomplished, and identify program staff responsible for conducting activities. You must provide activities for all of your proposed objectives.
3. List and describe the evaluation experts or doctoral students and CDC and other agency staff whom you intend to partner with to conduct the activities identified in this supplemental announcement.
4. Describe relationships proposed for these (listed in #3.) and any additional collaboration with CBAs or consultants proposed.
Outline your plan for evaluation (including timeline) and summarize how this strategy will be quality assured and evaluated. Identify process and outcome objectives and describe the methods that will be used to determine whether these objectives have been met.
You are required to have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number to apply for a grant or cooperative agreement from the Federal government. The DUNS number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access
For more information, see the CDC Web site at:
Additional information may be included in the application appendices. The appendices will not be counted toward the narrative page limit. This additional information includes:
Include the following: (1) Memoranda of intent, agreement, or letters of support from collaborators, and (2) letters of support from community-based HIV prevention projects or other CBA providers as appropriate.
This program announcement is the definitive guide on application format, content, and deadlines. It supersedes information provided in the application instructions. If your application does not meet the deadline above, it will not be eligible for review, and will be discarded. You will be notified that you did not meet the submission requirements.
If you have a question about the receipt of your application, first contact your courier. If you still have a question, contact the PGO-TIM staff at: 770-488-2700. Before calling, please wait two to three days after the application deadline. This will allow time for applications to be processed and logged.
Your application is subject to Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, as governed by Executive Order (EO) 12372. This order sets up a system for state and local governmental review of proposed federal assistance applications. You should contact your state single point of contact (SPOC) as early as possible to alert the SPOC to prospective applications, and to receive instructions on your state's process. Click on the following link to get the current SPOC list:
Funding restrictions, which must be taken into account while writing your budget are as follows:
• Submit an original and two copies of the Standard Form 424A and a detailed budget that includes line item details, itemization of unit cost breakdowns, and justifications. Please utilize the enclosed Budget guidelines for direction. Break all budget line items down to the level of detail proscribed in the guidelines.
• If you are requesting indirect costs in your budget, you must include a copy of your indirect cost rate agreement. If your indirect cost rate is a provisional rate, the agreement must be less than 12 months of age.
Guidance for completing your budget can be found on the CDC Web site, at the following Internet address:
You are required to provide measures of effectiveness that will demonstrate the accomplishment of the various identified objectives of the cooperative agreement. Measures of effectiveness must relate to the performance goals stated in the “Purpose” section of this announcement. Measures must be objective and quantitative, and must measure the intended outcome. These measures of effectiveness must be submitted with the application and will be an element of evaluation.
Your application will be evaluated against the following criteria:
(1) The extent to which the applicant's overall strategy and specific plan is likely to accomplish the goals and activities of this supplemental announcement. (30 points).
(2) The extent to which the proposed objectives are specific, measurable, realistic, time-phased and consistent with the goals and activities of this supplemental announcement (25 points).
(3) The extent to which the applicant's proposed plan expands or enhances the existing Focus Area 2 activities funded under program announcement 04019 (15 points).
(4) The extent to which the applicant describes and documents support and intended collaboration from evaluation experts and other evaluation contractors as appropriate (15 points).
(5) The extent to which the evaluation plan will measure the achievement of program objectives and monitor the implementation of proposed activities (15 points).
(6) Budget (not scored). The extent to which the budget is reasonable, itemized, clearly justified, and consistent with the intended use of funds.
An objective review panel will evaluate your application according to the criteria listed above. A technical review of each application, listing strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations, will be conducted by a content expert from the Program Evaluation and Research Branch, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention. This technical review will be provided to objective panel reviewers as an optional technical source of information to be considered during the scoring phase of the objective review process. The highest ranked application from the objective review process will be recommended to the Capacity Building Branch, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention for supplemental award.
If your application is to be funded, you will receive a Notice of Grant Award (NGA) from the CDC Procurement and Grants Office. The NGA shall be the only binding, authorizing document between the recipient and CDC. The NGA will be signed by an authorized Grants Management Officer, and mailed to the recipient fiscal officer identified in the application.
Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification of the results of the application review by mail.
For more information on the Code of Federal Regulations, see the National Archives and Records Administration at the following Internet address:
The following additional requirements apply to this project:
• AR-4 HIV/AIDS Confidentiality Provisions
• AR-5 HIV Program Review Panel Requirements
• AR-7 Executive Order 12372
• AR-8 Public Health System Reporting Requirements
• AR-9 Paperwork Reduction Act Requirements
• AR-10 Smoke-Free Workplace Requirements
• AR-11 Healthy People 2010
• AR-12 Lobbying Restrictions
• AR-14 Accounting System Requirements
• AR-15 Proof of Non-Profit Status
• AR-16 Security Clearance Requirement
Additional information on these requirements can be found on the CDC Web site at the following Internet address:
The reporting requirements will be on a trimester schedule (every 4 months). Awardee will be required to submit an original, plus two copies of three reports during the budget year as follows:
1. Initial progress report (within or on 30 days after the completion of the first 4 months of the budget period).
2. Interim progress report (within or on 30 days after the completion of the 8 month of the budget period), this report will also serve as the continuation application for determining satisfactory progress for the current year and funding for the next budget year, and must contain the following elements: (a) Current Budget Period Activities Objectives; (b) Current Budget Period Financial Progress; (c) New Budget Period Program Proposed Activity Objectives; (d) Detailed Line-Item Budget and Justification; and (e) Additional Requested Information.
3. Final progress report (within or on 30 days after the completion of the 12 month of the budget period).
4. Financial status report, no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period.
5. Final financial and performance reports, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period.
For general questions about this announcement, contact: Technical Information Management Section, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: 770-488-2700.
For program technical assistance, contact: Keith Yamaguchi, Project Officer, Capacity Building Branch, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, CDC National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, MS E-40, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone: (404) 639-3858, e-mail:
For budget assistance, contact: Betty Vannoy, Grants Management Specialist, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-2897, e-mail:
Application Deadline: August 2, 2004.
The overall aim of this program is to develop national models of routine HIV testing in clinical settings, which also provide for the full continuum of post-test counseling and care, including ART.
The United States Government seeks to reduce the impact of HIV/AIDS in specific countries within sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and the Americas. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) encompasses HIV/AIDS activities in more than 75 countries, and focuses on 14 countries, including Uganda, to develop comprehensive and integrated prevention, care, and treatment programs. CDC has initiated its Global AIDS Program (GAP) to strengthen capacity and expand activities in the areas of: (1) HIV primary prevention; (2) HIV care, support and treatment; and (3) capacity and infrastructure development, including surveillance. Targeted countries represent those with the most severe epidemics and the highest number of new infections. They also represent countries where the potential impact is greatest and where the United States government agencies are already active. Uganda is one of those countries.
CDC's mission in Uganda is to work with Ugandan and international partners to develop, evaluate, and support effective implementation of interventions to prevent HIV and related illnesses, and improve care and support of persons with HIV/AIDS.
Mulago and Mbarara Hospitals are Uganda's only university teaching hospitals. The majority of the nation's doctors and nurses are trained within their facilities. The next tier of clinical provision is the regional referral hospitals, which also have an in-service training and supervisory function for the clinicians within their region. Voluntary counseling and testing (VCT) services are only available at 11 percent of health facilities (Uganda Health Facilities Survey 2002), and currently there is no routine counseling and testing (RCT) within hospitals. Where testing services are available in a hospital setting, only selected patients (about 28 percent, according to a recent study) are referred for testing, and pre- and post-test counseling support is generally poor or absent. In the same study, 55 percent of those not tested said they would have wanted to be tested. The most recent Demographic and Health Survey in Uganda indicated that 70 percent of people living in Uganda would like to receive HIV testing, but only ten percent reported that they had ever been tested. An estimated 20-70 percent of patients in hospital wards, TB clinics, and sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics are HIV infected, but HIV testing is not currently part of routine care. Improved basic preventative care, as well as ART, is about to become more widely available in Uganda as a result of various activities, including this one. ART will be launched within the public hospital system at those facilities where staffing, laboratory service, and the potential for training are maximal.
The purpose of this program are: to provide assistance to Uganda's two university teaching hospitals, Mulago and Mbarara Hospitals; to establish and manage routine counseling and testing services for all patients; to provide comprehensive clinical care for persons with HIV, including staff; to incorporate cotrimoxazole prophylaxis, other basic care interventions, and ART; and to deliver training to clinicians and other staff in these activities.
In addition, the provision at their homes of HIV counseling and testing to the household members of persons receiving ART, and subsequent inclusion in the HIV care program as appropriate, would be encouraged.
The measurable outcomes of the program will be in alignment with goals of the GAP to reduce HIV transmission and improve care of persons living with HIV. They also will contribute to the goals of the PEPFAR, which are: Within five years treat more than two million HIV-infected persons with effective combination ART; care for seven million HIV-infected and affected persons, including those orphaned by HIV/AIDS; and prevent ten million new infections. Some of the specific measurable outputs from this program will be: The number of clients receiving counseling and testing; the percentage of hospital patients receiving counseling and testing; the number of clients receiving basic care packages; the number of new clients served with ART, and those current ART clients receiving continuous service for more than 12 months; and the number of persons trained to provide all the forgoing services.
Awardee activities for this program are as follows:
a. Establish or expand a project office(s), as required by the activities.
b. Identify project staffing needs; hire and train staff.
c. Identify furnishings, fittings, equipment, computers, and other fixed assets procurement needs of the project and implementing partners, and acquire from normal sources.
d. Establish suitable administrative and financial management structures.
e. Work with Ministry of Health and other stakeholders to develop RCT and care operational guidelines.
f. Support the teaching hospitals to implement RCT in all hospital units, including the outpatient departments.
g. Train hospital staff, residents, and students in provision of HIV/AIDS basic preventive care package and ART management, with the expectation of having at least 1,000 patients receiving regular ART by March 2005.
h. Support the partner hospitals to implement a basic preventive care and ART program for patients and staff.
i. In collaboration with the Ministry of Health train appropriate personnel in conducting the ART accreditation process for potential ART centers.
j. Support the hospitals to develop a simple data collection system, integrated with the general Health Management Information System (HMIS), but collecting specific information related to this program that is not routinely collected by the HMIS.
k. Ensure that the commodities supply and management system is operational with respect to test kits, cotrimoxazole, anti-retrovirals (ARVs), TB diagnostic materials and drugs, and other necessary commodities. Use existing hospital and public sector
l. Develop a simple quality assurance system for RCT in clinical settings.
m. Publish reports, guidelines and training manuals relating to RCT testing in clinical settings.
n. Ensure that the above activities are undertaken in a manner consistent with the national HIV/AIDS strategy, and ARV policy and implementation guidelines.
In a cooperative agreement, CDC staff is substantially involved in the program activities, above and beyond routine grant monitoring.
CDC Activities for this program are as follows:
a. Provide technical assistance, as needed, in the development of training curricula, materials, and diagnostic therapeutic guidelines.
b. Collaborate with the recipient, as needed, in the development of an information technology system for medical record keeping, information access, and in the analysis of data derived from those records.
c. Assist, as needed, in monitoring and evaluation of the program, and in development of further appropriate initiatives.
d. Assist, as needed, in appropriate analysis and interpretation of data collected during training sessions.
e. Provide input, as needed, into the criteria for selection of staff and training candidates, and the regional hospital to be included in the RCT program.
f. Provide input into the overall program strategy.
g. Collaborate, as needed, with the recipient in the selection of key personnel to be involved in the activities to be performed under this agreement, including approval of the overall manager of the program.
Technical assistance and training may be provided directly by CDC staff, or through organizations that have successfully competed for funding under a separate CDC contract.
CDC involvement in this program is listed in the Activities Section above.
(This amount is the approximate total funding amount for the entire five-year project period.)
(This amount is for the first 12-month budget period, and includes direct costs.)
Throughout the project period, CDC's commitment to continuation of awards will be conditioned on the availability of funds, evidence of satisfactory progress by the recipient (as documented in required reports), and the determination that continued funding is in the best interest of the Federal Government.
Applications may be submitted by public nonprofit organizations, private nonprofit organizations, universities, colleges, research institutions, hospitals, and faith-based organizations that meet the following criteria:
1. Have at least two years of documented HIV/AIDS related clinical training experience in Uganda.
2. Have existing activities with Mulago Hospital because it is critical that this activity commences quickly and that the applicant is not delayed by procedures required to obtain acceptance from the Mulago Hospital authorities.
Title 2 of the United States Code section 1611 states that an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible to receive Federal funds constituting an award, grant or loan.
Matching funds are not required for this program.
If you request a funding amount greater than the ceiling of the award range, your application will be considered non-responsive and will not be entered into the review process. You will be notified that your application did not meet the submission requirements.
If your application is incomplete or non-responsive to the requirements listed below, it will not be entered into the review process. You will be notified that your application did not meet the submission requirements.
To apply for this funding opportunity use application form CDC 5161. Application forms and instructions are available on the CDC Web site, at the following Internet address:
If you do not have access to the Internet, or if you have difficulty accessing the forms on-line, you may contact the CDC Procurement and Grants Office Technical Information Management Section (PGO-TIM) staff at: 770-488-2700. Application forms can be mailed to you.
• Maximum number of pages: 25. If your narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first pages which are within the page limit will be reviewed.
• Font size: 12 point unreduced.
• Double spaced.
• Paper size: 8.5 by 11 inches.
• Page margin size: One inch.
• Printed only on one side of page.
• Held together only by rubber bands or metal clips; not bound in any other way.
• Must be submitted in English.
Your narrative should address activities to be conducted over the entire project period, and should consist of, as a minimum, a plan; objectives; activities; methods; an evaluation framework; a budget highlighting any supplies mentioned in the Program Requirements, and any proposed capital expenditure.
The budget justification will not be counted in the page limit stated above. Guidance for completing your budget can be found on the United States government Web site at the following address:
Additional information is optional and may be included in the application appendices. The appendices will not be counted toward the narrative page limit. This additional information could include but is not limited to: organizational charts, curriculum vitae, letters of support, etc.
You are required to have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number to apply for a grant or cooperative agreement from the Federal government. The DUNS number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business
For more information, see the CDC Web site at:
Additional requirements that may require you to submit additional documentation with your application are listed in section “VI.2 Administrative and National Policy Requirements.”
This announcement is the definitive guide on application submission address and deadline. It supersedes information provided in the application instructions. If your application does not meet the deadline above, it will not be eligible for review, and will be discarded. You will be notified that your application did not meet the submission requirements.
CDC will not notify you upon receipt of your application. If you have a question about the receipt of your application, first contact your courier. If you still have a question, contact the PGO-TIM staff at: 770-488-2700. Before calling, please wait two to three days after the application deadline. This will allow time for applications to be processed and logged.
Executive Order 12372 does not apply to this program.
Funds may be used for:
1. RCT at the facilities targeted by the project including required training, test kit purchase, and staffing.
2. Covering the costs of and procuring elements of the basic preventive care package, including but not necessarily limited to daily cotrimoxazole prophylaxis, TB screening, diagnosis and treatment, as well as possible INH prophylaxis, prevention with positives education, household water treatment and bednets.
3. ART at the facilities targeted by the project, including required ARV purchase, training, additional staffing, laboratory rehabilitation and equipment, and office and information technology equipment to facilitate enhancement of the hospitals' data management systems to include ART and necessary program indicators.
4. Evaluation and management of the activities.
Restrictions, which must be taken into account while writing your budget, are as follows:
• Funds may not be used for any new construction.
• Antiretroviral Drugs—The purchase of ARVs, reagents, and laboratory equipment for antiretroviral treatment projects require pre-approval from HHS/CDC officials.
• Needle Exchange—No funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to carry out any program of distributing sterile needles or syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.
• Funds may be spent for reasonable program purposes, including personnel, training, travel, supplies and services. Equipment may be purchased and renovations completed if deemed necessary to accomplish program objectives; however, prior approval by CDC officials must be requested in writing.
• All requests for funds contained in the budget shall be stated in U.S. dollars. Once an award is made, CDC will not compensate foreign grantees for currency exchange fluctuations through the issuance of supplemental awards.
• The costs that are generally allowable in grants to domestic organizations are allowable to foreign institutions and international organizations, with the following exception: With the exception of the American University, Beirut, and the World Health Organization, indirect costs will not be paid (either directly or through sub-award) to organizations located outside the territorial limits of the United States or to international organization regardless of their location.
• The applicant may contract with other organizations under this program, however, the applicant must perform a substantial portion of the activities, including program management and operations, and delivery of prevention and care services for which funds are requested.
• You must obtain an annual audit of these CDC funds (program-specific audit) by a U.S.-based audit firm with international branches and current licensure/authority in-country, and in accordance with International Accounting Standards or equivalent standard(s) approved in writing by CDC.
• A fiscal Recipient Capability Assessment may be required, prior to or post award, in order to review the applicant's business management and fiscal capabilities regarding the handling of U.S. Federal funds.
• Prostitution and Related Activities
The U.S. Government is opposed to prostitution and related activities, which are inherently harmful and dehumanizing, and contribute to the phenomenon of trafficking in persons.
Any entity that receives, directly or indirectly, U.S. Government funds in connection with this document (“recipient”) cannot use such U.S. Government funds to promote or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution or sex trafficking. Nothing in the preceding sentence shall be construed to preclude the provision to individuals of palliative care, treatment, or post-exposure pharmaceutical prophylaxis, and necessary pharmaceuticals and commodities, including test kits, condoms, and, when proven effective, microbicides. A recipient that is otherwise eligible to receive funds in connection with this document to prevent, treat, or monitor HIV/AIDS shall not be required to endorse or utilize a multisectoral approach to combating HIV/AIDS, or to endorse, utilize, or participate in a prevention method or treatment program to which the recipient has a religious or moral objection. Any information provided by recipients about the use of condoms as part of projects or activities that are funded in connection with this document shall be medically accurate and shall include the public health benefits and failure rates of such use.
In addition, any foreign recipient must have a policy explicitly opposing, in its activities outside the United
• Sex trafficking means the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act. 22 U.S.C. 7102(9).
• A foreign recipient includes an entity that is not organized under the laws of any State of the United States, the District of Columbia or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Restoration of the Mexico City Policy, 66 FR 17303 (March 28, 2001).
All recipients must insert provisions implementing the applicable parts of this section, ‘Prostitution and Related Activities,’ in all subagreements under this award. These provisions must be express terms and conditions of the subagreement, acknowledge that each certification to compliance with this section, “Prostitution and Related Activities,” are a prerequisite to receipt of U.S. Government funds in connection with this document, and must acknowledge that any violation of the provisions shall be grounds for unilateral termination of the agreement prior to the end of its term. In addition, all recipients must ensure, through contract, certification, audit, and/or any other necessary means, all the applicable requirements in this section, “Prostitution and Related Activities,” are met by any other entities receiving U.S. Government funds from the recipient in connection with this document, including without limitation, the recipients' sub-grantees, sub-contractors, parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates. Recipients must agree that HHS may, at any reasonable time, inspect the documents and materials maintained or prepared by the recipient in the usual course of its operations that relate to the organization's compliance with this section, “Prostitution and Related Activities.”
All primary grantees receiving U.S. Government funds in connection with this document must certify compliance prior to actual receipt of such funds in a written statement referencing this document (
Recipients' compliance with this section, “Prostitution and Related Activities,” is an express term and condition of receiving U.S. government funds in connection with this document, and any violation of it shall be grounds for unilateral termination by HHS of the agreement with HHS in connection with this document prior to the end of its term. The recipient shall refund to HHS the entire amount furnished in connection with this document in the event it is determined by HHS that the recipient has not complied with this section, “Prostitution and Related Activities.”
Awards will not allow reimbursement of pre-award costs. Guidance for completing your budget can be found on the CDC Web site, at the following Internet address:
Application Submission Address: Submit the original and two hard copies of your application by mail or express delivery service to: Technical Information Management Section—PA# 04227, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341.
Applications may not be submitted electronically at this time.
You are required to provide measures of effectiveness that will demonstrate the accomplishment of the various identified objectives of the cooperative agreement. Measures of effectiveness must relate to the performance goals stated in the “Purpose” section of this announcement. Measures must be objective and quantitative, and must measure the intended outcome. These measures of effectiveness must be submitted with the application and will be an element of evaluation.
Your application will be evaluated against the following criteria:
1. Understanding the issues, principles and systems requirements involved in delivering RCT, basic preventive care, and ART in a clinical context in Uganda (25 points)
Does the applicant demonstrate an understanding of the clinical, social, managerial, ethical and other practical issues involved in delivering RCT, basic preventive care, and ART effectively in the setting of Mulago and Mbarara hospitals?
2. Ability to carry out the proposal (25 points)
Does the applicant demonstrate the capability to achieve the purpose of this proposal?
3. Work Plan (20 points)
Does the applicant describe activities which are realistic, achievable, time-framed and appropriate to complete this program?
4. Personnel (15 points)
Are the personnel, based on qualifications, training, availability, and experience, adequate to carry out the proposed activities?
5. Administrative and Accounting Plan (15 points)
Is there a plan to account for, prepare reports on, monitor, and audit expenditures under this agreement; manage the resources of the program; and produce, collect, and analyze performance data?
6. Budget (not scored)
Is the budget itemized and well justified for conducting the activities; and is it consistent with stated activities and planned program activities?
Applications will be reviewed for completeness by the Procurement and Grants Office (PGO) staff, and for responsiveness by the National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHSTP)/GAP. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not advance through the review process. Applicants will be notified that their application did not meet submission requirements.
An objective review panel will evaluate complete and responsive applications according to the criteria listed in the “V.1. Criteria” section above.
September 1, 2004.
Successful applicants will receive a Notice of Grant Award (NGA) from the CDC Procurement and Grants Office. The NGA shall be the only binding, authorizing document between the recipient and CDC. The NGA will be signed by an authorized Grants Management Officer, and mailed to the recipient fiscal officer identified in the application.
Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification of the results of the application review by mail.
45 CFR Part 74 and Part 92
For more information on the Code of Federal Regulations, see the National Archives and Records Administration at the following Internet address:
• AR-10 Smoke-Free Workplace Requirements Additional information on these requirements can be found on the CDC Web site at the following Internet address:
You must provide CDC with an original, plus two hard copies, of the following reports:
1. Interim progress report, no less than 90 days before the end of the budget period. The progress report will serve as your non-competing continuation application, and must contain the following elements:
a. Current Budget Period Activities Objectives.
b. Current Budget Period Financial Progress.
c. New Budget Period Program Proposed Activity Objectives.
d. Detailed Line-Item Budget and Justification.
e. Additional Requested Information.
f. Measures of Effectiveness.
2. Financial status report, no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period.
3. Final financial and performance reports, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period.
4. Semi annual progress reports, 30 days after the end of the project period.
These reports must be mailed to the Grants Management or Contract Specialist listed in the “Agency Contacts” section of this announcement.
For general questions about this announcement, contact: Technical Information Management Section, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: 770-488-2700.
For program technical assistance, contact: Jonathan Mermin, MD, MPH, Global Aids Program [GAP], Uganda Country Team, National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], PO Box 49, Entebbe, Uganda, Telephone: +256-41320776, E-mail:
For financial, grants management, or budget assistance, contact: Shirley Wynn, Contract Specialist, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, Telephone: 770-488-1515, E-mail address:
This program is authorized under the Public Health Service Act Sections 301 (42 U.S.C. 241); and 318B (42 U.S.C. 247c-2), as amended.
The decreasing proportion of transmission category information at the national level continues to be a problem. Transmission category information is critical to allocating resources and developing effective prevention activities. Funded areas will develop educational materials and tools to assist surveillance staff, health care partners and providers, and others reporting or abstracting risk factor information for surveillance purposes to obtain more complete ascertainment of risk factor information at the local level. There is also a need to evaluate these materials and tools to determine whether they are useful in improving completeness of ascertainment of risk factor information and if so, what information sources produced the highest yields. This information will help to inform the HIV/AIDS Surveillance Guidelines revisions. The development and evaluation of materials and tools is intended to take place over a two year period. The evaluation results are intended to immediately inform the HIV/AIDS surveillance program in order to make timely programmatic decisions. Year one funding is intended for formative assessment of barriers to reporting. Year two is intended for materials and tools development and testing of materials and tools. This program addresses the “Healthy People 2010” focus area(s) for HIV.
Measurable outcomes of the program will be in alignment with one (or more) of the following performance goal(s) for the National Center for HIV STD and TB Prevention (NCHSTP): Strengthen the capacity nationwide to monitor the epidemic, develop and implement effective HIV prevention interventions and evaluate prevention programs.
Awardee activities for this program are as follows:
(1) Participate in a conference call (within one month of award) with CDC and other awardees to begin to develop a project plan and 2-year time line;
(2) Collaborate with CDC staff to develop instruments to assess barriers to reporting and collect information on barriers to reporting;
(3) Collaborate with CDC staff to select control and evaluation sites within each area;
(4) From evaluation sites, collect risk factor information using standard public health surveillance methods such as chart reviews, source of information as well as other relevant information utilizing the educational materials and tools in a timeframe determined by the CDC;
(5) Report information collected in item (4) in a format and timeframe determined by the CDC;
(6) Provide qualitative feedback related to the feasibility and acceptability of the educational materials and tools to the CDC in a format and timeframe determined by the CDC; and
(7) Maintain a secure environment to protect the security and confidentiality of data obtained in these evaluation activities.
In a cooperative agreement, CDC staff is substantially involved in the program activities, above and beyond routine grant monitoring. CDC activities include:
(1) Participate in a conference call (within one month of award) with awardees to begin to develop a project plan and 2-year time line;
(2) Collaborate with awardees to develop instruments to assess barriers to reporting;
(3) Collaborate with awardees to select control and evaluation sites within each area;
(4) Determine timeframe for the collection and reporting of data by the awardees to the CDC;
(5) Maintain a secure environment to protect the security and confidentiality of data obtained in these evaluation activities; and
(6) Analyze data and disseminate project results.
Throughout the project period, CDC's commitment to continuation of awards will be conditioned on the availability of funds, evidence of satisfactory progress by the recipient (as documented in required reports), and the determination that continued funding is in the best interest of the Federal Government.
Surveillance areas should have a large number of cases reported without risk factor information available over a short time period in order to provide sufficient statistical power.
Eligible applicants are state or territorial health departments or directly funded city health departments currently engaged in HIV/AIDS surveillance funded through Program Announcement 04017 with at least 5,000 HIV cases reported to CDC in 2002 as reported in the HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report (2002) and with at least 800 cases initially reported without risk factor information.
Eligible applicants also must have the legal authority to access health care records, consistently and rapidly contact health care providers as part of routine HIV surveillance, and have implemented HIV laboratory- and provider-based reporting since at least January 1, 2001.
Matching funds are not required for this program.
Title 2 of the United States Code Section 1611 states that an organization described in Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible to receive Federal funds constituting an award, grant, or loan.
To apply for this funding opportunity use application form CDC 1246. Application forms and instructions are available on the CDC web site, at the following Internet address:
• Maximum number of pages: 10 If your narrative exceeds the page limit, only the pages within the page limit will be reviewed.
• Font size: 12 point unreduced.
• Double spaced.
• Paper size: 8.5 by 11 inches.
• Page margin size: One inch.
• Printed only on one side of page.
• Held together only by rubber bands or metal clips; not bound in any other way.
Your narrative should address activities to be conducted over the entire project period, and must include the following items in the order listed:
(1) Participate in a conference call (within one month of award) with CDC and other awardees to begin to develop a project plan and 2-year time line;
(2) Collaborate with CDC staff to develop instruments to assess barriers to reporting and collect information on barriers to reporting;
(3) Collaborate with CDC staff to select control and evaluation sites within each area;
(4) From evaluation sites, collect risk factor information using standard public health surveillance methods such as chart reviews, source of information as well as other relevant information utilizing the educational materials and tools in a timeframe determined by the CDC;
(5) Report information collected in item (4) in a format and timeframe determined by the CDC;
(6) Provide qualitative feedback related to the feasibility and acceptability of the educational materials and tools to the CDC in a format and timeframe determined by the CDC; and
(7) Maintain a secure environment to protect the security and confidentiality of data obtained in these evaluation activities.
You are required to have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number to apply for a grant or cooperative agreement from the Federal government. The DUNS number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access www.dunandbradstreet.com or call 1-866-705-5711.
For more information, see the CDC Web site at:
Additional requirements that may require you to submit additional documentation with your application are listed in section “VI.2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements.”
This announcement is the definitive guide on application submission address and deadline. It supersedes information provided in the application instructions. If your application does not meet the deadline above, it will not be eligible for review, and will be discarded. You will be notified that your application did not meet the submission requirements.
CDC will not notify you upon receipt of your application. If you have a question about the receipt of your application, first contact your courier. If you still have a question, contact the PGO-TIM staff at: 770-488-2700. Before calling, please wait two to three days after the application deadline. This will allow time for applications to be processed and logged.
Your application is subject to Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, as governed by Executive Order (EO) 12372. This order sets up a system for state and local governmental review of proposed federal assistance applications. You should contact your state single point of contact (SPOC) as early as possible to alert the SPOC to prospective applications, and to receive instructions on your state's process. Click on the following link to get the current SPOC list:
Restrictions which must be taken into account while writing your budget are as follows:
• None
Guidance for completing your budget can be found on the CDC Web site, at the following Internet address:
Applications may not be submitted electronically at this time.
You are required to provide measures of effectiveness that will demonstrate the accomplishment of the various identified objectives of the cooperative agreement. Measures of effectiveness must relate to the performance goals stated in the “Purpose” section of this announcement. Measures must be objective and quantitative, and must measure the intended outcome. These measures of effectiveness must be submitted with the application and will be an element of evaluation.
Your application will be evaluated against the following criteria:
(1) The extent to which the applicant describes its ability to collaborate with CDC and other awardees on projects with a quick turn around time. (20 Points)
(2) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates its ability to develop realistic project plans and time lines and follow through on their completion. (20 Points)
(3) The extent to which the applicant describes its ability to develop instruments to assess barriers to reporting, or other surveillance activities, and to collect information on barriers to these activities. (20 Points)
(4) The extent to which the applicant describes past, current, and proposed collaboration with: the relevant HIV/AIDS organizations and agencies within the reporting area, CDC, and other states or national organizations involved in coordinating and assuring the quality, completeness, and accuracy of HIV/AIDS surveillance data and can demonstrate the understanding of the importance of following a standard protocol for data collection. (15 Points)
(5) The extent to which the applicant can maintain a secure environment to protect the security and confidentiality of data obtained in these evaluation activities. (15 Points)
(6) The extent to which proposed staffing, organizational structure, staff experience and background, and job descriptions and curricula vitae for both proposed and current staff indicate the ability to carry out the anticipated activities. (10 Points)
(7) The budget is reasonable, clearly justified, consistent with the demonstrated need and proposed activities, and likely to lead to success of the planned activities. (Reviewed, but not scored)
Applications will be reviewed for completeness by the Procurement and Grants Office staff, and for responsiveness by NCHSTP. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not advance through the review process. Applicants will be notified that their application did not meet submission requirements.
An objective review panel will evaluate complete and responsive applications according to the evaluation criteria listed in the criteria section above.
September 1, 2004.
Successful applicants will receive a Notice of Grant Award (NGA) from the CDC Procurement and Grants Office. The NGA shall be the only binding, authorizing document between the recipient and CDC. The NGA will be signed by an authorized Grants Management Officer, and mailed to the recipient fiscal officer identified in the application.
Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification of the results of the application review by mail.
For more information on the Code of Federal Regulations, see the National Archives and Records Administration at the following Internet address:
The following additional requirements apply to this project:
• AR-4 HIV/AIDS Confidentiality Provisions.
• AR-7 Executive Order 12372.
• AR-8 Public Health System Reporting Requirements.
• AR-9 Paperwork Reduction Act Requirements.
• AR-11 Healthy People 2010.
• AR-14 Accounting System Requirements.
• AR-16 Security Clearance Requirement.
Additional information on these requirements can be found on the CDC Web site at the following Internet address:
For general questions about this announcement, contact: Technical Information Management Section, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: 770-488-2700.
For program technical assistance, contact: Ron Sanders, Program Consultant, National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention, Division of HIV AIDS Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE Mail stop E-47, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone: 404-639-4678, E-mail:
For financial, grants management, or budget assistance, contact: Kang Lee, Grants Management Specialist, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: 770-488-2733, E-mail:
A notice announcing the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2004 funds for Tuberculosis Elimination and Laboratory was published in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting nominations for nonvoting industry representatives to serve on certain device panels of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
FDA has a special interest in ensuring that women, minority groups, individuals with physical disabilities, and small businesses are adequately represented on its advisory committees. Therefore, the agency encourages nominations for appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.
Industry organizations interested in participating in the selection of a nonvoting member to represent industry for vacancies listed in this notice must send a letter to FDA by August 2, 2004, stating their interest in one or more panels. Concurrently, nomination materials for prospective candidates should be sent to FDA by August 2, 2004. A nominee may either be self-nominated or nominated by an organization to serve as a nonvoting industry representative.
All letters of interest and nominations should be sent to Kathleen L. Walker, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-17), Food and Drug Administration, 2098 Gaither Rd., Rockville, MD 20850, 301-594-1283, ext. 114, e-mail:
Kathleen L. Walker, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-17), Food and Drug Administration, 2098 Gaither Rd., Rockville, MD 20850, 301-594-1283, ext. 114, e-mail:
Section 520(f)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(f)(3)), as amended by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, provides that each medical device panel include one nonvoting member to represent the interests of the medical device manufacturing industry.
FDA is requesting nominations for nonvoting members representing industry interests for the vacancies listed below:
The functions of the medical device panels are listed as follows: (1) Review and evaluate data on the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices and make recommendations for their regulation; (2) advise the Commissioner of Food
Any organization in the medical device manufacturing industry wishing to participate in the selection of a nonvoting member to represent industry on a particular panel should send a letter stating that interest to the FDA contact (see
Individuals may nominate themselves or an organization representing the medical device industry may nominate one or more individuals to serve as nonvoting industry representatives. A current curriculum vitae (which includes the nominee's business address, telephone number, and e-mail address) and the name of the panel of interest should be sent to the FDA contact person. FDA will forward all nominations to the organizations that have expressed interest in participating in the selection process for that panel.
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice of opportunity to provide written comments.
On May 15, 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)/Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Advisory Committee on HIV and STD Prevention and Treatment (CHACHSPT) established the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act Reauthorization Workgroup. The workgroup is seeking public input about future HIV/AIDS care program directions pertaining to resource allocation issues related to the third reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act. The CHACHSPT will subsequently submit a set of formal recommendations relating to resource allocation issues for reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act to the HRSA Administrator and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
To be assured of consideration, written comments should be postmarked no later than July 30, 2004.
Written comments should be sent to the CHACHSPT, c/o HRSA, HIV/AIDS Bureau, Office of Policy and Program Development, Attention: Shelley Gordon, Parklawn Building, Room 7-18, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.
Ms. Shelley Gordon, HRSA, HIV/AIDS Bureau, Office of Policy and Program Development, (301) 443-9684, fax (301) 443-3323, or e-mail:
The purpose of the request for comments is to obtain public input regarding resource allocation issues related to the Ryan White CARE Act, as amended. Resource allocation issues relate to the CARE Act provisions or statutory requirements which affect the distribution of funds across and within the various components of the CARE Act.
In 2003, the CHACHSPT carefully examined all aspects of the CARE Act and considered testimony from three public meetings held around the country designed to gather suggestions about future program directions in HIV and AIDS care and treatment programs. The CHACHSPT developed recommendations which were adopted by the Committee in November 2003 and formally submitted to the HRSA Administrator and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services in 2004. Since that time, the report on Public Financing and Delivery of HIV Care was released by the Institute of Medicine, and new and ongoing issues about HIV/AIDS resources have been raised by communities and CARE constituents. Therefore, further examination by the CHACHSPT of resource allocation issues is desired.
Written comments should be limited to no more than 10 single-spaced pages (or 20 double-spaced) and should contain the name, address, telephone and fax numbers, and any organizational affiliation of the person(s) providing written comments. Respondents may be contacted by the CHACHSPT Ryan White CARE Act Reauthorization Workgroup to answer questions regarding their submitted comments. We are particularly interested in comments which address the following issues:
1. The use of HIV case reporting and service utilization data to determine eligibility under Title I and funding under Titles I and II of the CARE Act;
2. Changes to the existing Titles I and II hold harmless provisions;
3. Changes in the percentages of the Title I grant awarded by formula and competitively;
4. Changes in the percentages of the Title II AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) distributed by formula and supplemental awards;
5. Comparability and portability of the ADAP; and
6. Institute of Medicine report on: “Public Financing and Delivery of HIV Care: Securing the Legacy of Ryan White.”
This notice amends Part A (Office of the Secretary) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reflect a realignment of functions within the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) Immediate Office of the Inspector General (IOIG), Office of Management and Policy (OMP), Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI), Office of Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG), Office of Audit Services (OAS), and Office of Investigations (OI). The statement of organization, functions, and delegations of authority conforms to and carries out the statutory requirements for operating OIG. Chapter AF was last published in its entirety on October 28, 1997.
The realignment of functions within IOIG, OMP, OEI, OCIG, OAS, and OI has been done to allow greater staff flexibility and to better reflect the current work environment and priorities within OIG. In addition, this notice sets forth a number of technical changes in Chapter AF that serve to update references to office titles and clarify OIG's organizational structure and responsibilities with respect to information technology.
As amended, Chapter AF now reads as follows:
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) was established by law as an independent and objective oversight unit of the Department to carry out the mission of promoting economy, efficiency and effectiveness through the elimination of waste, abuse and fraud. In furtherance of this mission, the organization:
A. Conducts and supervises audits, investigations, inspections and evaluations relating to HHS programs and operations.
B. Identifies systemic weaknesses giving rise to opportunities for fraud and abuse in HHS programs and operations and makes recommendations to prevent their recurrence.
C. Leads and coordinates activities to prevent and detect fraud and abuse in HHS programs and operations.
D. Detects wrongdoers and abusers of HHS programs and beneficiaries so appropriate remedies may be brought to bear.
E. Keeps the Secretary and the Congress fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies in the administration of HHS programs and operations and about the need for and progress of corrective action, including imposing sanctions against providers of health care under Medicare and Medicaid who commit certain prohibited acts.
In support of its mission, OIG carries out and maintains an internal quality assurance system and a peer review system with other Offices of Inspectors General, including periodic quality assessment studies and quality control reviews, to provide reasonable assurance that applicable laws, regulations, policies, procedures, standards, and other requirements are followed, are effective, and are functioning as intended in OIG operations.
There is at the head of OIG a statutory Inspector General, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. This office consists of six organizational units:
A. Immediate Office of the Inspector General (AFA).
B. Office of Management and Policy (AFC).
C. Office of Evaluation and Inspections (AFE).
D. Office of Counsel to the Inspector General (AFG).
E. Office of Audit Services (AFH).
F. Office of Investigations (AFJ).
The component sections that follow describe the specific functions of the organization.
The Immediate Office of the Inspector General (IOIG) is directly responsible for meeting the statutory mission of OIG as a whole and for promoting effective OIG internal quality assurance systems, including quality assessment studies and quality control reviews of OIG processes and products. The office also plans, conducts and participates in a variety of interagency cooperative projects and undertakings relating to fraud and abuse with the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and other governmental agencies, and is responsible for the reporting and legislative and regulatory review functions required by the Inspector General Act.
IOIG is comprised of the Inspector General, the Principal Deputy Inspector General and an immediate office staff, including the Office of External Affairs.
As the senior official of the organization, the Inspector General supervises the Chief Counsel to the Inspector General and the Deputy Inspectors General who head the major OIG components. The Inspector General is appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and reports to and is under the general supervision of the Secretary or, to the extent such authority is delegated, the Deputy Secretary, but does not report to and is not subject to supervision by any other officer in the Department. In keeping with the independence conferred by the Inspectors General Act, the Inspector General assumes and exercises, through line management, all functional authorities related to the administration and management of OIG and all mission-related authorities stated or implied in the law or delegated directly from the Secretary.
The Inspector General provides executive leadership to the organization and exercises general supervision over the personnel and functions of its major components. The Inspector General determines the budget needs of OIG, sets OIG policies and priorities, oversees OIG operations and provides reports to the Secretary and the Congress. By statute, the Inspector General exercises general personnel authority,
The Principal Deputy Inspector General assists the Inspector General in the management of OIG, and during the absence of the Inspector General, acts as the Inspector General.
The Office of External Affairs is comprised of three components—Public Affairs, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, and the Executive Secretariat. The office conducts and coordinates reviews of existing and proposed legislation and regulations related to HHS programs and operations to
The Office of Management and Policy (OMP) provides mission support services to the Inspector General and other components. The office formulates and executes the budget, develops functional policies for the general management of OIG, and manages information technology resources.
In support of its mission, the office carries out and maintains an internal quality assurance system. The system includes quality control reviews of OMP processes and products to ensure that policies and procedures are followed effectively and function as intended.
The office is directed by the Deputy Inspector General for Management and Policy and the Assistant Inspector General for Information Technology. The office is comprised of the following components:
A. Administrative Operations.
B. Information Technology.
C. Planning and Performance.
The office formulates and oversees the execution of the budget and confers with the Office of the Secretary, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congress on budget issues. It issues quarterly grants to States for Medicaid Fraud Control Units. It conducts management studies and analyzes and establishes and coordinates general management policies for OIG and publishes those policies in the OIG Administrative Manual. It serves as OIG liaison to the Office of the Secretary for personnel issues and other administrative policies and practices, and on equal employment opportunity and other civil rights matters. It coordinates internal control reviews for OIG.
The office is responsible for information resources management (IRM), as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act, OMB Circular A-130, the Federal Information Resources Management regulations, the Computer Security Act of 1987, the Clinger-Cohen Act, the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002, HHS IRM Circulars, and by related guidance. The office also provides nationwide information technology support to OIG through management of its local area networks, provision of computer end-user and direct mission information technology (IT) support, maintenance of OIG information systems, and safeguarding sensitive information and IT resources. The Assistant Inspector General for Information Technology, who reports to the Inspector General through the Deputy Inspector General for Management and Policy, serves as Chief Information Officer. In addition, the office operates a toll-free hotline for OIG to permit individuals to call in suspected fraud, waste, or abuse; refers the calls for appropriate action by HHS agencies or other OIG components; and analyzes the body of calls to identify trends and patterns of fraud and abuse needing attention.
This office coordinates the development of the work planning process, including strategic long-range planning, tactical planning and the annual work plan coordination and production. It also is responsible for overseeing emergency operations and national security classification policy, and for coordinating updates of the Red Book, which addresses unimplemented OIG recommendations to reduce fraud, waste and abuse.
The Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) is responsible for conducting a comprehensive set of in-depth evaluations of HHS programs, operations and processes to identify vulnerabilities, to prevent and detect fraud, waste and abuse, and to promote efficiency and effectiveness in HHS programs and operations.
This office is comprised of the following components:
A. Immediate Office.
B. Policy and Oversight Division.
C. Program Evaluations Division.
D. Regional Operations.
E. Technical Support Staff.
This office is directed by the Deputy Inspector General for OEI who, with the assistance of an Assistant Inspector General, is responsible for carrying out OIG's evaluations mission and supervises the Directors for Policy and Oversight, Program Evaluations, Regional Operations, and Technical Support. This office is also responsible for the oversight of the State Medicaid Fraud Control Units and for certifying and recertifying these units and for auditing their Federal funding.
This office develops OEI's evaluation and inspection policies, procedures and standards. It manages OEI's human and financial resources; develops and monitors OEI's management information systems; and conducts management reviews within the HHS/OIG and for other OIGs upon request. The office carries out and maintains an internal quality assurance system. The system includes quality assessment studies and quality control reviews of OEI processes and products to ensure that policies and procedures are effective, are followed, and are functioning as intended.
This office manages OEI's work planning process, and develops and reviews legislative, regulatory and program proposals to reduce vulnerabilities to fraud, waste and mismanagement. It develops evaluation techniques and coordinates projects with other OIG and Departmental components. It provides programmatic expertise and information on new programs, procedures, regulations and statutes to OEI regional offices. It maintains liaison with other components in the Department, follows up on implementation of corrective action recommendations, evaluates the actions taken to resolve problems and vulnerabilities identified, and provides additional data or corrective action options, where appropriate.
This office is responsible for OEI's mission in the field. The regional offices conduct extensive evaluations of HHS programs and produce the results in inspection reports. They conduct data and trend analyses of major HHS initiatives to determine the effects of current policies and practices on program efficiency and effectiveness. They recommend changes in program policies, regulations and laws to improve efficiency and effectiveness, and to prevent fraud, abuse, waste and mismanagement. They analyze existing policies to evaluate options for future policy, regulatory and legislative improvement.
This office provides statistical and database advice and services for inspections conducted by the regional offices. It carries out analyses of large databases to identify potential areas of fraud and abuse and provides technical assistance to the regional offices for these purposes.
The Office of Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG) is responsible for providing all legal services and advice to the Inspector General, Principal Deputy Inspector General and all the subordinate components of the Office of Inspector General, in connection with OIG operations and administration, OIG fraud and abuse enforcement and compliance activities, and OIG activities designed to promote efficiency and economy in the Department's programs and operations. OCIG is also responsible for proposing and litigating civil money penalty (CMP) and program exclusion cases within the jurisdiction of OIG, for coordinating False Claims Act and criminal, civil and administrative fraud and abuse law enforcement matters, and for resolving voluntary disclosure cases. OCIG develops guidance to assist providers in establishing compliance programs; monitors ongoing compliance of providers subject to integrity agreements; and promotes industry awareness through the issuance of advisory opinions, fraud alerts, and special advisory bulletins.
The office is directed by the Chief Counsel to the Inspector General and the Assistant Inspector General for Legal Affairs. The office is comprised of the following components:
A. Advice.
B. Administrative and Civil Remedies.
C. Industry Guidance.
This office provides legal advice to the various components of OIG on issues that arise in the exercise of OIG's responsibilities under the Inspector General Act of 1978. Such issues include the scope and exercise of the Inspector General's authorities and responsibilities; investigative techniques and procedures (including criminal procedure); the sufficiency and impact of legislative proposals affecting OIG; and the conduct and resolution of investigations, audits and inspections. The office evaluates the legal sufficiency of OIG recommendations and develops formal legal opinions to support these recommendations. When appropriate, the office coordinates formal legal opinions with the HHS Office of the General Counsel. The office provides legal advice on OIG internal administration and operations, including appropriations, delegations of authority, ethics, OIG regulations, personnel matters, the disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act and the safeguarding of information under the Privacy Act. The office is responsible for conducting and coordinating litigation activities on personnel and Equal Employment Opportunity matters and Federal tort actions involving OIG employees. The office is responsible for the clearance and enforcement of subpoenas issued by OIG, and defends OIG in litigation matters as necessary.
1. This office is responsible for determining whether to propose or implement administrative sanctions, including CMPs within the jurisdiction of OIG, assessments, and program exclusions. The office, in conjunction with the Office of Investigations (OI), effectuates all mandatory and permissive exclusions from participation in Federal health care programs under the Social Security Act; decides on all requests for reinstatement from, or waiver of, exclusions; and participates in developing standards governing the imposition of these exclusion authorities. The office litigates appeals of program exclusions before the Departmental Appeals Board and assists DOJ in handling any subsequent appeals of such cases to the Federal courts.
2. The office reviews all cases referred by CMS under the patient anti-dumping authority of the Social Security Act and, where appropriate, proposes and litigates CMPs with respect to hospitals, and CMPs and program exclusions with respect to physicians, for violations of the patient anti-dumping statute.
3. The office proposes and litigates CMPs, assessments and program exclusions under the CMP law and other CMP authorities delegated to OIG.
4. In coordination with DOJ, the office handles all False Claims Act cases, including
5. The office also develops and monitors corporate and provider integrity programs adopted as part of settlement agreements, conducts on-site reviews, and develops audit and investigative review standards for monitoring such plans in cooperation with other OIG components. The office resolves breaches of integrity agreements through the development of corrective action plans and through the imposition of sanctions.
This office is responsible for drafting and issuing advisory opinions to the health care industry and members of the public on whether an activity (or proposed activity) would constitute grounds for the imposition of a sanction under the anti-kickback statute, the CMP law or the program exclusion authorities, and on other issues pertaining to the anti-kickback statute. The office develops and updates procedures for the submission of requests for advisory opinions and for determining the fees that will be imposed. The office solicits and responds to proposals for new regulatory safe harbors to the anti-kickback statute, modifications to existing safe harbors, and new fraud alerts. The office consults with DOJ on all proposed advisory opinions and safe
The Office of Audit Services (OAS) provides policy direction for and conducts and oversees comprehensive audits of HHS programs, operations, grantees and contractors, following generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS), the Single Audit Act of 1984, applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circulars and other legal, regulatory and administrative requirements. This includes investigative audit work performed in conjunction with other OIG components. The office maintains an internal quality assurance system, including periodic quality assessment studies and quality control reviews, to provide reasonable assurance that applicable laws, regulations, policies, procedures, standards and other requirements are followed in all audit activities performed for, or on behalf of, the Department. In furtherance of this mission, the organization engages in a number of activities:
A. The office coordinates and confers with officials of the central Federal management agencies (OMB, the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Department of the Treasury) on audit matters involving HHS programs and operations. It provides technical assistance to Federal, State and local investigative offices on matters involving HHS programs and operations. It participates in interagency efforts implementing OMB Circular 133, which calls for use of the single audit concept for most external audits, as well as reviews the quality of those audits as they pertain to HHS oversight responsibilities. It performs audits of activities administered by other Federal departments, following the system of audit cognizance administered by OMB. It participates in the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) initiatives and other governmentwide projects; works with other OIG components on special assignments and projects; and responds to congressional oversight interests related to audit matters in the Department.
B. The office provides comprehensive audit services to HHS operating divisions (OPDIVs) and the Office of the Secretary staff divisions (STAFFDIVs) in their development of program policies and management of grants and procurement and in their establishment of indirect cost rates. The office also performs pre-award audits of grant or contract proposals to determine the financial capability of the grantees or contractors and conducts post-award audits.
C. The office reviews legislative, regulatory and policy proposals for audit implications. It recommends improvements in the accountability and integrity features of legislation, regulations and policy. It prepares reports of audits and special studies for the Secretary, heads of HHS OPDIVs, regional directors and others. It gathers data on unresolved audit findings for the statutorily required semiannual reports to the Congress and reconciles resolution data with the Department OPDIVs as required by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended by Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-504). It conducts follow-up examinations and special analyses of actions taken on previously reported audit findings and recommendations to ensure completeness and propriety. The office provides input to the Office of Inspector General Semiannual Report to the Congress and produces summaries for both (1) the Orange Book—a summary of unimplemented program and management improvements recommended—and (2) the Red Book—a summary of significant monetary recommendations not yet implemented.
D. The office serves as the focal point for all financial management audit activity within the Department and provides the primary liaison conduit between the OIG and Departmental management. It also provides overall leadership and direction in carrying out the responsibilities mandated under the Chief Financial Officers Act relating to financial statement audits.
The office is comprised of the following components:
A. Immediate Office.
B. Financial Management, Regional Operations, and Information Technology Audits
C. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Audits.
D. Grants and Internal Activities Audits.
E. Audit Management and Policy.
This office is directed by the Deputy Inspector General for Audit Services who carries out the functions designated in the law (section 3(d)(1) of the Inspectors General Act) for the position, Assistant Inspector General for Auditing. The Deputy Inspector General for Audit Services is responsible to the Inspector General for carrying out OIG's audit mission and supervises the Assistant Inspectors General heading OAS offices described below.
This office is directed by the Assistant Inspector General for Financial Management and Regional Operations. In addition to directing this office, the Assistant Inspector General supervises the eight Regional Inspectors General for Audit Services. The office's principal functions include the direct-line responsibility for audits of financial statements and financial statement-related audits, including internal audits of functional areas within the Department, and directing field audit operations.
1. The office serves as the focal point for all financial statement and financial statement-related audit activity within the Department and serves as the primary liaison conduit between OIG and Departmental management.
2. The office provides oversight for audits of governments, universities and nonprofit organizations conducted by non Federal auditors (external audit resources) and those under contract with OIG.
3. The office reviews the design, development and maintenance of Department computer-based systems through the conduct of comprehensive audits of general and application controls in accordance with GAO's Federal Information System Controls Audit Manual and develops and applies advanced computer-based audit techniques for use in detecting fraud, waste and abuse in HHS programs.
4. The office maintains an internal quality assurance system that provides reasonable assurance that applicable laws, regulations, policies, procedures, standards and other requirements are followed in all financial management audit activities performed by the office, or on behalf of the Department.
This office is directed by the Assistant Inspector General for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Audits. The office conducts audits of CMS program operations and oversees nationwide the audits of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, their contractors, and providers of services and products. It maintains an internal quality assurance system to provide reasonable assurance that applicable laws, regulations, policies, procedures, standards and other requirements are followed in all CMS audit activities performed by, or on behalf of, the Department.
This office is directed by the Assistant Inspector General for Grants and Internal Activities Audits. The office conducts and oversees audits of the operations and programs of the Administration for Children and Families, the Administration on Aging, and the Public Health programs, as well as Statewide cost allocation plans. It maintains an internal quality assurance system, including periodic quality control reviews, to provide reasonable assurance that applicable laws, regulations, policies, procedures, standards and other requirements are followed in its audit activities.
This office is directed by the Assistant Inspector General for Audit Management and Policy. The office manages the human and financial resources of OAS, including developing staffing allocation plans and issuing policy for, coordinating and monitoring all budget, staffing, recruiting, and training activities of the office. It maintains a professional development program for office staff, which meets the requirements of Government auditing standards. The office evaluates audit work, including performing quality control reviews of audit reports, and coordinates the development of and monitors audit work plans. It operates and maintains an OAS-wide quality assurance program that includes the conduct of periodic quality control reviews. It develops audit policy, procedures, standards, criteria and instructions to be followed by OAS staff in conducting audits of Departmental programs, grants, contracts or operations. Such policy is developed in accordance with GAGAS and other legal, regulatory and administrative requirements. The office tracks, monitors and reports on audit resolution and follow-up in accordance with OMB Circular A-50, “Audit Follow-up,” and the 1988 Inspector General Act Amendments. The office coordinates with other OIG components in developing the Work Plan and provides input to the Office of Inspector Semiannual Report to the Congress.
The Office of Investigations (OI) is responsible for conducting and coordinating investigative activities related to allegations of fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement in HHS programs by applicants, grantees, contractors, or by HHS employees in the performance of their official duties. It serves as OIG liaison to DOJ on all matters relating to investigations of HHS programs and personnel, and reports to the Attorney General when OIG has reasonable grounds to believe Federal criminal law has been violated. The office serves as a liaison with CMS, State licensing boards, and other outside organizations and entities with regard to exclusion, compliance and enforcement activities. It works with other investigative agencies and organizations on special projects and assignments. In support of its mission, the office carries out and maintains an internal quality assurance system. The system includes quality assessment studies and quality control reviews of OI processes and products to ensure that policies and procedures are followed effectively, and are functioning as intended.
This office comprises the following components:
A. Immediate Office.
B. Investigative Operations.
C. Investigative Oversight and Support.
This office is directed by the Deputy Inspector General for Investigations who is responsible for the functions designated in the law for the position, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations. The Deputy Inspector General for Investigations supervises the Assistant Inspector General for Investigative Operations and the Assistant Inspector General for Investigative Oversight and Support who head the offices described below.
The Deputy Inspector General for Investigations is responsible to the Inspector General for carrying out the investigative mission of OIG and for leading and providing general supervision to the investigative component. The Immediate Office coordinates quality assurance studies to ensure that applicable laws, regulations, policies, procedures, standards and other requirements are followed in all investigative activities performed by, or on behalf of, the Department.
The Assistant Inspector General for Investigative Operations, who supervises a headquarters staff and the Special Agents in Charge, directs this office.
1. The headquarters staff assists the Deputy Inspector General for Investigations in establishing investigative priorities, evaluating the progress of investigations, and reporting to the Inspector General on the effectiveness of investigative efforts. It develops and implements investigative techniques, programs, guidelines, and policies. It provides programmatic expertise and issues information on new programs, regulations and statutes. It directs and coordinates the investigative regional offices.
2. The headquarters staff reviews completed reports of investigations to ensure accuracy and compliance with guidelines. It issues the reports to pertinent agencies, management officials and the Secretary and recommends appropriate debarment actions, administrative sanctions, CMPs and other civil actions, or prosecution under criminal law. It identifies systemic and programmatic vulnerabilities in the Department's operations and makes recommendations for change to the appropriate managers. The office reviews proposed legislation, regulations, policies and procedures to identify vulnerabilities and recommends modification where appropriate. The office coordinates with the other OIG components in developing the Work Plan and provides input to the Office of Inspector General Semiannual Report to the Congress. It reviews investigative files in response to Privacy and Freedom of Information Act requests, and serves as OIG liaison to the Office of the Secretary for Freedom of Information and Privacy Act requests.
3. The staff provides for the personal protection of the Secretary.
4. The regional offices conduct investigations of allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement and violations of standards of conduct within the jurisdiction of OIG in their assigned geographic areas. They coordinate investigations and confer
5. The office maintains an automated data and management information system used by all OI managers and investigators. It provides technical expertise on computer applications for investigations and coordinates and approves investigative computer matches with other agencies. The office directs and manages criminal investigations into electronic and/or computer-related violations.
6. The office develops all health care mandatory and permissive program exclusions, and ensures enforcement of exclusions imposed through liaison with CMS, DOJ and other governmental and private sector entities. It is responsible for developing, improving and maintaining a comprehensive OIG database on all OIG exclusion actions, and promptly and accurately reports all exclusion actions within its authority to the database. It informs appropriate regulatory agencies, health care providers and the general public of all OIG exclusion actions, and is responsible for improving public access to information on these exclusion actions to ensure that excluded individuals and entities are effectively barred from program participation.
This office is directed by the Assistant Inspector General for Investigative Oversight and Support who performs the general management functions of the office.
1. This office manages the human and financial resources of OI, including developing staffing allocation plans and issuing policy for coordination and monitoring all budget, staffing and recruiting.
2. This office plans, develops, implements and evaluates all levels of employee training for investigators, managers, support staff and other personnel. It oversees a law enforcement techniques and equipment program.
3. This office coordinates the general management processes, implements policies and procedures published in the OIG Administrative Manual and elsewhere. It also coordinates a national inspection program to ensure compliance with the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act, the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, and Attorney General guidelines.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee to the Director, National Cancer Institute.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Institute Director's Consumer Liaison Group.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to scheduling conflicts.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant application, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Urologic and Kidney Development and Genitoruinary Diseases Study Section, June 28, 2004, 8:30 a.m. to June 28, 2004, 5 p.m., The Fairmont, Washington, DC 20401, M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037 which was published in the
The meeting will be two days June 28, 2004 to June 29, 2004. The meeting time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, DHS.
Notice.
The National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) will hold a briefing on the status of several Working Group activities that the Council undertook at its last meeting. The NIAC advises the President of the United States on the security of information systems for critical infrastructure supporting other sectors of the economy, including banking and finance, transportation, energy,
The NIAC will meet Tuesday, July 13, 2004, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.
The NIAC will meet at the National Press Club Ballroom, 529 14th St, NW., 13th floor, Washington, DC 20045. Written comments may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to NIAC members, the Council suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials, ten days prior to the meeting date, to the following address Ms. Nancy J. Wong, Infrastructure Coordination Division, Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 6095, Washington, DC 20230.
Nancy J. Wong, 202-482-1929.
The meeting will be open to the public. Limited seating will be available. Reservations are not accepted. Notice of these meetings is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2.
These meetings are open to the public. Please note that the meetings may close early if all business is finished. At the discretion of the Chair, members of the public may make oral presentations during the meetings. If you would like to make an oral presentation at a meeting, please notify the Designated Federal Official and submit written material. If you would like a copy of your material distributed to each member of the Committee in advance of a meeting, please submit 25 copies to the Designed Federal Official (see
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, telephone the Designated Federal Official as soon as possible.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of meeting.
A working group of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) will meet to discuss task statement #43 concerning recommendations on a training and assessment program for able-bodied seamen on sea-going vessels. MERPAC advises the Secretary of Homeland Security on matters relating to the training, qualifications, licensing, certification, and fitness of seamen serving in the U.S. merchant marine. This meeting will be open to the public.
The MERPAC working group will meet on Monday, August 16, 2004 from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. (local), and Tuesday, August 17, 2004, from 8:30 a.m. to noon (local). This meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished. Request to make oral presentations should reach the Coast Guard on or before August 2, 2004. Written material and requests to have a copy of your material distributed to each member of the working group should reach the Coast Guard on or before August 2, 2004.
The working group of MERPAC will meet at The Mariners House, 11 North Square, Boston, Massachusetts. Send written material and requests to make oral presentations to Mr. Mark Gould, Commandant (G-MSO-1), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001. This notice is available on the Internet at
For questions on this notice, contact Mr. Mark C. Gould, Assistant to the Executive Director, telephone 202-267-6890, fax 202-267-4570, or e-mail
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2.
This meeting is open to the public. Please note that the meeting may adjourn 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 Mr. Gould no later than August 2, 2004. Written material for distribution at the meeting should reach the Coast Guard no later than August 2, 2004. If you would like copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee or working group in advance of the meeting, please submit 25 copies to Mr. Gould no later than August 2, 2004.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Mr. Gould at the number listed in
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice.
The Coast Guard is making available an optional standard form Letter of Undertaking that will be satisfactory for use in most minor civil penalty cases. Letters of undertaking are often proffered to the Coast Guard on behalf of vessels that might otherwise be denied clearance to leave port, due to possible statutory violations.
The optional standard form Letter of Undertaking is available for use on July 2, 2004.
The Department of Transportation's Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this notice, USCG-2004-17465. Comments and material received from the public will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket electronically, through the Web Site for the Docket Management System,
For questions on this notice contact LCDR Sam Goswellen, Office of Investigations and Analysis (G-MOA), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second St. SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, telephone 202-267-0691, or email
Under certain conditions, a U.S. or foreign flag vessel must obtain clearance from the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) before it departs a port or place in the United States (see Title 46 Appendix, U.S. Code, sec. 91). The Coast Guard can ask CBP to deny or revoke the vessel's clearance if its owner, operator, or person in charge could be subject to a fine or civil penalty for violating one of the following statutes:
• Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(12);
• Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 33 U.S.C. 1908(e), and implementing regulations;
• Ports and Waterways Safety Act, 33 U.S.C. 1232(f), and implementing regulations;
• Tank vessel operating or inspection requirements, 46 U.S.C. 3718(e), and implementing regulations in 33 CFR part 157 and 46 CFR parts 30 through 40 and 150 through 154;
• Inland Navigation Rules, 33 U.S.C. 2072(d); and
• Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, as amended by the National Invasive Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 4711(g)(3).
In lieu of asking CBP to deny or revoke clearance, we can also accept a bond or other satisfactory surety proffered on behalf of the vessel. Local Coast Guard Captains of the Port (COTPs) determine whether a surety is satisfactory. In a 1995
In light of the comments we received, we have decided to take further action only with respect to Letters of Undertaking (LOUs). LOUs are often proffered to and accepted by the Coast Guard as one form of satisfactory surety. An LOU is proffered on behalf of a vessel's owner, operator, or both (hereafter: “owner/operator”). Among other undertakings, the owner/operator promises to satisfy any adverse judgment, up to a stated maximum amount.
We received four sets of comments in response to our 1995 notice. These comments will be entered in the docket for USCG-2004-17465 as supplemental materials.
Two commenters favored nationwide uniformity in the format and content of sureties. The Coast Guard wants to make the process of proffering and accepting sureties easier for industry and for us. Some degree of uniformity can help us attain that goal. However, we also want to preserve the COTP's authority to accept a proffered surety only if it fits the circumstances of a particular case.
Two commenters said existing practices can be reformed without requiring regulations. We agree that some reforms can be instituted without adding or amending regulations. The action we are taking with respect to LOUs does not require rulemaking.
One commenter said surety procedures should allow for different formats. With respect to LOUs, this commenter said the Coast Guard should develop minimum requirements which, if met by the profferor, would result in the LOU's acceptance. This commenter, and a second commenter, also recommended accepting a standard LOU developed on behalf of protection and indemnity (“P&I”) clubs (maritime insurers) by the International Group of P&I Clubs. The second commenter cited an unreported U.S. district court opinion in support of this view. The Coast Guard agrees that a standard form provides useful guidance, but we do not think a single form can be accepted under all conditions. The LOU is in essence a contract. Therefore, it is subject to negotiation and agreement on its terms to fit the circumstances of the particular case. We note that in the past, when a standard form has been approved by P&I club managers, almost always this approval has been in the context of a suit asserting a vessel's
One commenter recommended that the Coast Guard use the International Group of P&I Clubs' membership information to determine from whom the Coast Guard will accept an LOU. This involves how the Coast Guard determines who can be an “approved” LOU issuer, what standards will be applied in that analysis, and development and maintenance of an “approved LOU issuer list” over time. These issues are under active Coast Guard consideration but are beyond the scope of this notice.
Two commenters said LOUs should be satisfactory to the Coast Guard whether the potential fine is civil or criminal in nature. The Coast Guard agrees that properly drafted sureties can be used in either civil or criminal cases. However, sureties for more serious or complex civil or criminal cases may need to address factors that do not arise in more common civil cases. The optional standard form LOU we are making available is intended for use only in the more common civil cases.
One commenter said a COTP should give “verbal authorization to release” a vessel before the paperwork for the surety is completed. The Coast Guard disagrees. Congress has provided statutory means for keeping vessels alleged to be involved in statutory violations in port until the public's interests are adequately secured, and we believe those means should be used unless and until the vessel provides satisfactory surety. An unenforceable verbal agreement does not provide such surety.
One commenter said that the Coast Guard's current procedures require a vessel to provide unnecessary and unreasonable double security, because in addition to the LOU itself, the vessel's owner must waive all objections to the Coast Guard's
One commenter said that, under 33 U.S.C. 1232, the clearance denial and revocation provisions of 46 U.S.C. Appendix, sec. 91, apply only if a vessel's owner has been given notice of the alleged violation and an opportunity for a hearing. This commenter said the Coast Guard oversteps the bounds of its police power by refusing port clearance to a vessel that has received no such notice and hearing. The Coast Guard disagrees. The statutes authorizing us to request the CBP's denial or revocation of a vessel's clearance do not require that request to be preceded by a hearing. No case has held that a pre-hearing request to withhold clearance violates due process. We note that, while not directly applicable, the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a pre-issuance hearing before a warrant of
One commenter criticized the Coast Guard for trying to retain the right to arrest a vessel or other property of the vessel owner even after satisfactory surety is posted. This commenter contended that, in
One commenter said that the Coast Guard's efforts to require an LOU correspondent to agree to act as a P&I club's agent for service of process are wrong because club correspondents are not agents of the club, and unnecessary because the International Group of P&I Clubs' standard LOU form issued in admiralty
Comments received in response to our 1995 notice confirm the Coast Guard's view that all sides will be benefited by having a standard form LOU that can be used nationwide for most civil penalty cases. Therefore, we are making available the optional standard form LOU appearing as an Appendix to this notice.
We do not think this form would be suitable for criminal cases or for civil cases where the penalty may be $500,000 or more. Serious or complex cases require other forms of surety. For a surety document to be satisfactory in a serious or complex case, it may need to include some or all of the following pledges or guarantees from the vessel owner, operator, or person in charge to:
(1) make vessel crew members and other employees available for legal proceedings, including making necessary travel arrangements to facilitate appearances;
(2) stipulate to certain incontrovertible facts,
(3) authorize acceptance of service of correspondence and legal papers;
(4) enter an appearance in Federal district court; or
(5) comply with instructions regarding payment of funds.
Use of the standard form LOU is entirely optional on the part of a profferor. It can be proffered in any COTP zone. In addition, vessel representatives can still proffer a nonstandard LOU, a surety bond, or any other satisfactory form of surety. However, in each case, a COTP retains full authority to accept or reject a proffered surety, including a proffered standard form LOU, after consultation with the COTP's servicing legal office.
In consideration of the United States of America refraining from withholding the clearance required by 46 U.S.C. App. 91 of the [name of vessel], arresting the vessel or attaching any property belonging to the owners of the vessel in connection with claims and actions arising out of alleged violations described above occurring within the navigable waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States, and arising on or after [date of alleged violation] (hereafter referred to as the “alleged incident”), the undersigned [name of the bound party], hereby agrees:
1. That [name of agent or attorney-in-fact] as agent [or attorney in fact] for the owner/[name of bound party] and operator/[name of bound party] shall accept delivery of correspondence for the owner/[name of bound party] and operator/[name of bound party] and service of any process on behalf of the owner/[name of bound party] and operator/[name of bound party] in any case, action, administrative hearing, or proceeding related to or arising from civil penalties for violations as generally identified above; that delivery to the agent [or attorney-in-fact] constitutes effective notice and service on the owner/[name of bound party] and operator/ [name of bound party];
2. To file, or cause to be filed, upon demand, a claim and/or appearance by the owner and/or operator of the vessel [name of vessel] in any action brought against either or both of them by the United States concerning the alleged violations, and to defend the vessel from any
3. In the event a final judgment (after appeal if any) is entered, in favor of the United States against the vessel [name of vessel], or her owner or operator as a result of such action, to pay and satisfy said judgment, plus interest and costs, up to and not exceeding [maximum amount of civil penalty that may be assessed], or any lesser amount settled between the parties, provided said settlement has been made with the written approval of [name of bound party];
4. Upon written demand, to cause to be filed in said hearing or action, a bond in form and sufficiency of surety satisfactory to you, or to the court, sufficient in amount not to exceed [maximum amount of civil penalty that may be assessed], including interest and costs, to secure your claim against the owner and/or operator, and [name of vessel] in the aforesaid judicial action. In the event that the bond referred to in this paragraph is filed, the undersigned shall have no further obligation under Paragraph 3 above.
This letter is to be binding whether the [name of vessel] be lost or not lost, in port or not in port, and is given without prejudice to all rights or defenses which the [name of vessel] and/or her owner or operator may have, none of which is to be regarded as waived, with the exception that the owner and operator agree that delivery to the agent identified in Paragraph 1 above, of correspondence for the owner/[name of bound party] and operator/[name of bound party] will constitute effective notice to the owner/[name of bound party] and operator/ [name of bound party], and that the owner/[name of bound party] and operator/[name of bound party] will not assert in any subsequent hearing or action any alleged defects in notice or service of process issued and served in accordance with this undertaking. This letter does not constitute an admission of liability by the vessel or its owner/[name of bound party] and operator/[name of bound party].
This letter is also written entirely without prejudice to any claims and rights the United States of America may have pursuant to any applicable certificate of financial responsibility (“COFR”) pertaining to the vessel, none of which claims and rights is to be regarded as waived or discharged.
Owner/[name of bound party] warrants that it owns the vessel. Operator/[name of bound party] agrees that it may be considered an operator of the vessel under applicable United States law.
If no penalty is assessed, or no action is filed in the aforesaid court within a period of three (3) years from the date hereof, this letter shall become null and void. If the owner/[name of bound party] fails to appear as required by Paragraph ## or fails to waive objections to jurisdiction as required by Paragraph ##, then the undersigned association agrees to pay to the United States the full amount of this letter of undertaking.
It is understood and agreed that the execution of this letter by [name of law firm] on behalf of the undersigned [name of bound party underwriter or P&I club] shall not be construed as binding upon [name of law firm] but is binding only upon the undersigned [name of bound party underwriter or P&I club].
As attorney-in-fact for the above limited purposes only per [telex, telefax, letter] authority from [name of bound party underwriter or P&I club] dated [date].
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-1523-DR), dated June 10, 2004, and related determinations.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 10, 2004:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-1521-DR), dated June 8, 2004, and related determinations.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 8, 2004:
The parish of Jefferson Davis for Individual Assistance.
The parish of Jefferson Davis is eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
Kathy Burruss, room 7266, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to Heather Ranson, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B-17, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Mark Johnston at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of document availability.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces the availability for public review of the draft Recovery Plan for the Pecos sunflower (
The comment period for this proposal closes on August 2, 2004. Comments on the draft Recovery Plan must be received by the closing date.
Persons wishing to review the draft Recovery Plan can obtain a copy from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna, NE., Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87113. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this draft Recovery Plan to the Field Supervisor at the address above.
Rawles Williams, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, at the above address; telephone 505/346-2525, facsimile 505/346-2542.
Restoring an endangered or threatened animal or plant to the point where it is again a secure, self-sustaining member of its ecosystem is a primary goal of the Service's endangered species program. To help guide the recovery effort, the Service is working to prepare Recovery Plans for most of the listed species native to the United States. Recovery Plans describe actions considered necessary for conservation of species, establish criteria for downlisting or delisting them, and estimate time and cost for implementing the recovery measures needed.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The document submitted for review is the draft Recovery Plan for the Pecos sunflower. The species was listed as threatened on October 20, 1999, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The threats facing the survival and recovery of this species are the loss and alteration of its wetland habitat due to aquifer depletions, diversions of surface water, and filling wetlands for conversion to dry land; competition from non-native plant species, including Russian olive and saltcedar; excessive livestock grazing; and, highway maintenance and mowing. The draft Recovery Plan includes scientific information about the species and provides objectives and actions needed to delist the species. Recovery activities designed to achieve these objectives include identifying and securing core conservation habitats essential for the long-term survival of this species, continuing life history, population, and habitat studies, ensuring compliance with existing regulations, and promoting opportunities for voluntary conservation of the species.
The draft Recovery Plan is being submitted for technical and agency
The Service solicits written comments on the draft Recovery Plan described. All comments received by the date specified above will be considered prior to approval of the final Recovery Plan.
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The Aqua Water Supply Corporation, Lower Colorado River Authority, Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative, Inc., and Austin Energy (Applicants) have applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for an incidental take permit (TE-078366-0) pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The requested permit, which is for a period of 30 years, would authorize incidental take of the endangered Houston toad (
The Service and applicant have prepared the Environmental Assessment/Habitat Conservation Plan (EA/HCP) for the incidental take application. A determination of jeopardy to the species and a decision under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will not be made until at least 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act and NEP regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
Written comments on the application should be received on or before August 31, 2004.
Persons wishing to review the application may obtain a copy by writing to the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Room 4102, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103. Persons wishing to review the EA/HCP may obtain a copy by written or telephone request to Scott Rowin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78758 (512/490-0057). Documents will be available for public inspection by written request or by appointment only during normal business hours (8:00 am to 4:30 pm) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office, Austin, Texas. Data or comments concerning the application and EA/HCP should be submitted in writing to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78758. Please refer to permit number TE-078366-0 when submitting comments.
Scott Rowin at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78758 (512/490-0057).
Section 9 of the Act prohibits the “taking” of endangered species such as the Houston toad. However, the Service, under limited circumstances, may issue permits to take endangered wildlife species incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Regulations governing permits for endangered species are at 50 CFR 17.22.
Issuance of the permit would authorize activities described above on approximately 6,792 acres of the 142,526-acre covered area. Facilities already in existence cover approximately 4,241.2 of the 6,792 acres. Coverage of the remaining 2,550.4 acres will result from the installation of new facilities. Many existing facilities (on approximately 2,240.8 acres) occur within right-of-ways (ROW) (primarily road ROWs) managed and maintained by other entities. The Applicants estimate that 2,023.5 acres of the anticipated future facilities would be placed within similar ROWs. The remaining 526.9 acres of new facilities would likely be constructed outside of existing roadway ROWs and throughout the covered area. Installation of new facilities would be accomplished gradually over the life of the permit.
Both the Service and Applicants agree that not all portions of the covered area contain suitable Houston toad habitat, and not all covered activities would result in take of the Houston toad. However, in an effort to efficiently and effectively allow normal business practices to continue, and to compensate for any impacts to the Houston toad, the Applicants propose to mitigate for all activities performed within the covered area as described in Sections 6.2.1.2, 6.2.1.3, and 6.2.2 of the EA/HCP, which would provide mitigation fees throughout the life of the permit and thus provide a substantial and dependable source of funds for toad conservation; an expected $1,866,354 over the life of the permit. The Applicants proposed this mitigation strategy so that the cost of mitigation could be spread over the life of the permit. Additionally, under this strategy the costs associated with mitigation could be incorporated into long-term budgeting and planning. Mitigation would occur regardless of whether the activities described above would result in take of the Houston toad.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of intent.
The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) intends to gather information necessary to prepare a Comprehensive Conservation Plan and associated environmental documents for the following 39 easement national wildlife refuges (NWR): Half Way Lake NWR, Stutsman County; Ardoch NWR, Walsh County; Buffalo Lake NWR, Pierce County; Hobart Lake NWR, Barnes County; Stoney Slough NWR, Barnes County; Tomahawk NWR, Barnes County; Camp Lake NWR, McLean County; Hiddenwood NWR, McLean County; Lake Otis NWR, McLean County; Lost Lake NWR, McLean County; Cottonwood NWR, McHenry County; Wintering River NWR, McHenry County; Johnson Lake NWR, Eddy County; Brumba NWR, Towner County; Rock Lake NWR, Towner County; Snyder Lake NWR, Towner County; Sibley Lake NWR, Griggs County; Little Goose NWR, Grand Forks County; Canfield Lake NWR, Burleigh County; Lambs Lake NWR, Nelson County; Rose Lake NWR, Nelson County; Lake Patricia NWR, Morton County; Pretty Rock NWR, Grant County; Sheyenne Lake NWR, Sheridan County; Silver Lake NWR, Ramsey/Benson Counties; Pleasant Lake NWR, Benson County; Wood Lake NWR, Benson County; Hutchinson Lake NWR, Kidder County; Lake George NWR, Kidder County; Lords Lake NWR, Bottineau/Rolette Counties; Rabb Lake NWR, Rolette County; School Section Lake NWR, Rolette County; Willow Lake NWR, Rolette County; Bone Hill NWR, LaMoure County; Dakota Lake NWR, Dickey County; Maple River NWR, Dickey County; Appert Lake NWR, Emmons County; Springwater NWR, Emmons County; and Sunburst Lake NWR, Emmons County. These 39 refuges are located primarily throughout eastern North Dakota and are individually managed by Arrowwood, Audubon, Devils Lake, J. Clark Salyer, Kulm, and Long Lake Complex's. The Service is issuing this notice in compliance with its policy to advise other organizations and the public of its intentions and to obtain suggestions and information on the scope of issues to be considered in the planning process.
Written comments should be received by September 30, 2004.
Comments and requests for more information should be sent to: Laura King, Planning Team Leader, and P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225-0486. The fax number is 303/236-4792 and e-mail is
Laura King, Planning Team Leader, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225-0486. The fax number is 303/236-4792 and e-mail is
The Service has initiated comprehensive conservation planning for the above listed 39 national wildlife refuges for the conservation and enhancement of their natural resources. These Refuges are unique in that they are primarily comprised of private lands covered by refuge and flowage easements acquired for $1.00 in the mid-1930s as water conservation and wildlife preservation projects. In the late 1930s, 31 of these easement lands were later combined and designated as national wildlife refuges by President Franklin D. Roosevelt through Executive Order for the purpose of ” * * * refuge[s] and breeding ground[s] for migratory birds and other wildlife * * *.” Seven other refuges were established in 1948, under the authority of the precursor to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, while the final refuge, Lake Otis, was establish in the early 1970s as ” * * * an inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds. * * *” Combined, these refuges encompass 46,935 acres, ranging in size from 160 acres (Half Way Lake) to 5,506 acres (Rock Lake).
During the comprehensive planning process, management goals, objectives, and strategies will be developed to carry out the purposes of the refuges and to comply with laws and policies governing refuge management and public use of refuges. As these are private lands, most of these refuges are primarily closed to public uses. Opportunities for public input will be provided at various public meetings planned for the summer of 2004. Exact dates and times for these public meetings are yet to be determined, but will be announced via local media.
All information provided voluntarily by mail, phone, or at public meetings (
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
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
The United States, as a Party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), will attend the thirteenth regular meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (COP13) in Bangkok, Thailand, October 2-14, 2004. Currently, the United States is developing its negotiating positions on proposed resolutions, proposed decisions, proposed amendments to the CITES Appendices (species proposals), and other agenda items that were submitted by other Party countries and the CITES Secretariat for consideration at COP13. With this notice we announce the provisional agenda for COP13, solicit your comments on the items on the provisional agenda, and announce a public meeting to discuss the items on the provisional agenda.
The public meeting will be held on August 12, 2004, at 1:30 p.m. In developing the U.S. negotiating positions on proposed resolutions, proposed decisions, species proposals, and other agenda items submitted by other Party countries and the CITES Secretariat for consideration at COP13, we will consider written information and comments you submit if we receive them by August 31, 2004.
The public meeting will be held in the Rachel Carson Room, in the Department of the Interior at 18th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC. Directions to the building can be obtained by contacting the Division of Management Authority (
Comments pertaining to proposed resolutions, proposed decisions, and agenda items other than those related to species proposals should be sent to the Division of Management Authority; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax Drive; Room 700; Arlington, VA 22203; or via E-mail at:
For information pertaining to resolutions, decisions, and agenda items other than those related to species proposals: Peter O. Thomas, Chief, Division of Management Authority; phone: 703-358-2095; fax: 703-358-2298; E-mail:
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, hereinafter referred to as CITES or the Convention, is an international treaty designed to control and regulate international trade in certain animal and plant species that are now or potentially may be threatened with extinction due to trade. These species are listed in Appendices to CITES, which are available on the CITES Secretariat's Web site at
This is our third in a series of
COP13 is scheduled to be held in Bangkok, Thailand, October 2-14, 2004.
The provisional agenda for COP13 is currently available on the CITES Secretariat's Web site at
We announce that we will hold a public meeting to discuss with you the items on the provisional agenda for COP13. The public meeting will be held on August 12, 2004, from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the Rachel Carson Room of the Department of the Interior at 18th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC. You can obtain directions to the building by contacting the Division of Management Authority (see
Through an additional notice and Website posting in advance of COP13, we will inform you about tentative U.S. negotiating positions on proposed resolutions, proposed decisions, species proposals, and other agenda items that were submitted by other Party countries and the CITES Secretariat for consideration at COP13.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
On behalf of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, the Secretary of the Interior proposes to extend Public Land Order No. 6560 for an additional 20-year period. The order withdrew National Forest System land from surface entry and mining to protect the Wisdom Administrative Site. This notice also gives an opportunity to comment on the proposed action and to request a public meeting.
Comments and requests for a public meeting must be received by August 2, 2004.
Comments and meeting requests must be sent to the Montana State Director, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 36800, Billings, Montana 59107-6800. Complimentary copies may be sent to the Regional Forester, Region 1, P.O. Box 7669, Missoula, Montana 59807.
Sandra Ward, BLM Montana State Office, P.O. Box 36800, Billings, Montana 59107-6800, 406-896-5052.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, has filed an application to extend Public Land Order No. 6560 (49 FR 32068, August 10, 1984) for an additional 20-year period. This withdrawal was made to protect the Wisdom Administrative Site and will expire August 5, 2004. An extension, if approved, would continue the withdrawal of National Forest System land from settlement, sale, location, or entry under the general land laws, including the United States mining laws, subject to valid existing rights, and would continue protection of facilities and capital improvements on the following-described land:
The area described contains 59.99 acres in Beaverhead County.
The Forest Service proposes to extend the withdrawal an additional 20 years. The extension of the withdrawal would protect the facilities and capital improvements within the Wisdom Administrative Site.
In accordance with section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f), the subject withdrawal may be extended if the Secretary of the Interior determines that the purpose for which the withdrawal was first made requires the extension and then, if so, only for a period not to exceed the duration of the original withdrawal period.
All persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, objections, or requests for public meetings in connection with the proposed withdrawal extension may present their views in writing to the Montana State Director of the Bureau of Land Management until August 2, 2004.
Notice is hereby given that an opportunity for a public meeting is afforded in connection with the proposed withdrawal extension. All interested persons who desire a public meeting for the purpose of being heard on the proposed extension must submit a written request to the Montana State Director, Bureau of Land Management by August 2, 2004. Upon determination by the authorized officer that a public meeting will be held, a notice of the time and place will be published in the
Comments, including names and street addresses of commenters, will be available for public review at the Bureau of Land Management Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana, during regular business hours 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. BLM will not consider anonymous comments. However, individual respondents may request anonymity. If you wish to withhold your name or address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. Such request will be honored to the extent allowed by law. All submissions from organizations or businesses will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to sell federally owned parcels of land in Elko and Lander Counties, Nevada, aggregating approximately 648.56 acres. All sales will be conducted on September 15, 2004, in accordance with competitive bidding procedures.
Comments regarding the proposed sale must be received by BLM on or before August 16, 2004. Sealed bids must be received by BLM not later than 4:30 p.m., P.d.t., September 8, 2004. Five parcels of land proposed for sale are to be put up for purchase and sale, at public auction, beginning at 10 a.m., P.d.t., September 15, 2004. Registration for oral bidding will begin at 8 a.m., P.d.t., September 15, 2004. The public auction will begin at 10 a.m., P.d.t., September 15, 2004. Other deadline dates for the receipt of payments are specified in the proposed terms and conditions of sale, as stated herein.
Comments regarding the proposed sale, as well as sealed bids to be submitted to BLM, should be addressed to: Field Manager, Elko Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 3900 East Idaho St., Elko, NV 89801.
More detailed information regarding the proposed sale and the lands involved may be reviewed during normal business hours (7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) at the Elko Field Office.
The address for oral bidding registration and for where the public auction will be held is: Bureau of Land Management, Elko Field Office, 3900 East Idaho St., Elko, NV 89801.
The auction will take place in the Elko Field Office Main Conference Room.
You may contact Jason Allen, Realty Specialist, at (775) 753-0235 or by e-mail at
The following lands have been authorized and designated for disposal under the Elko Resource Management Plan Record
Consisting of five parcels containing approximately 648.56 acres.
The terms and conditions applicable to this sale are as follows:
All parcels are sold and will be conveyed subject to the following:
a. All minerals are reserved to the United States, its' permittees, licensees and lessees, together with the right to prospect for, mine and remove the minerals under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe, along with all necessary access and exit rights.
b. A right-of-way is reserved for ditches and canals constructed by authority of the United States under the Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945).
c. Valid existing rights including, but not limited to, rights-of-way for roads, public utilities and flood control improvements. Encumbrances of record, appearing in the BLM public files for the parcels proposed for sale, are available for review during business hours, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., P.d.t., Monday through Friday, at the Elko Field Office.
2. No warranty of any kind, express or implied, is given by the United States as to the title, physical condition or potential uses of the parcels of land proposed for sale; and the conveyance of any such parcel will not be on a contingency basis. However, to the extent required by law, all such parcels are subject to the requirements of section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. 9620 (h)).
3. All purchasers/patentees, by accepting a patent, agree to indemnify, defend and hold the United States harmless from any costs, damages, claims, causes of action, penalties, fines, liabilities and judgments of any kind or nature arising from the past, present and future acts or omissions of the patentees or their employees, agents, contractors, or lessees, or any third-party arising out of or in connection with the patentee's use, occupancy, or operations on the patented real property. This indemnification and hold harmless agreement includes, but is not limited to, acts and omissions of the patentees and their employees, agents, contractors, or lessees, or any third party, arising out of or in connection with the use and/or occupancy of the patented real property which has already resulted or does hereafter result in: (1) Violations of Federal, State and local laws and regulations that are now or may in the future become, applicable to the real property; (2) judgments, claims or demands of any kind assessed against the United States; (3) costs, expenses, or damages of any kind incurred by the United States; (4) other releases or threatened releases of solid or hazardous waste(s) and/or hazardous substance(s), as defined by Federal or State environmental laws, off, on, into or under land, property and other interests of the United States; (5) other activities by which solids or hazardous substances or wastes, as defined by Federal or State environmental laws are generated, released, stored, used or otherwise disposed of on the patented real property, and any cleanup response, remedial action or other actions related in any manner to said solid or hazardous substances or wastes; or (6) natural resource damages as defined by Federal and State law. This covenant shall be construed as running with the parcels of land patented or otherwise conveyed by the United States, and may be enforced by the United States in a court of competent jurisdiction.
4. Maps delineating the individual proposed sale parcels are available for public review at the BLM Elko Field Office. Current appraisals for each parcel will be available for public review at the Elko Field Office on or about July 16, 2004.
5. (a) Bids may be received by sealed bid for all parcels , or orally for all parcels at auction. All sealed bids must be received at the Elko Field Office, no later than 4:30 p.m., P.d.t., September 8, 2004. Sealed bid envelopes must be marked on the lower front left corner with the BLM serial number for the parcel and the sale date. Bids must not be less than the federally approved fair market value and a separate bid must be submitted for each parcel. (b) Each sealed bid shall be accompanied by a certified check, money order, bank draft, or cashier's check made payable to the order of the Bureau of Land Management, for not less than 10 percent or more than 30 percent of the amount bid. The highest qualified sealed bid for each parcel will become the starting bid at the oral auction. If no sealed bids are received, oral bidding will begin at the fair market value, as determined by the authorized officer.
6. All parcels will be put up for competitive sale by oral auction beginning at 10 a.m., P.d.t., September 15, 2004, in the BLM Elko Field Office Main Conference Room, 3900 East Idaho Street, Elko, Nevada. Interested parties who will not be bidding are not required to register. If you are at the auction to conduct business with the high bidders or are there to observe the process, should seating become limited, you may be asked to relinquish your seat in order to provide seating for all bidders before the auction begins.
7. All oral bidders are required to register. Registration for oral bidding will begin at 8 a.m., P.d.t., on the day of the sale and will end at 10 a.m. P.d.t. You may pre-register by mail or fax by completing the form located in the sale folder and also available at the BLM Elko Field Office.
8. On the day of the sale, pre-registered bidders may present a photo identification card and receive a bidder number. All other bidders will be asked for additional information along with your photo identification card. Upon completion of registration you will be given a bidder number. If you are a successful bidder, you will be asked for a 20 percent deposit of the bid to be paid, before the close of business of the sale date.
9. The highest qualifying bid for any parcel, whether sealed or oral, will be declared the high bid. The apparent high bidder, if an oral bidder, must submit the full deposit amount to a BLM Collection Officer by 4:30 p.m., P.d.t., on the day of the sale either in the form of cash or a personal check, bank draft, cashier's check, money order or any combination thereof, made payable to the order of the Bureau of Land Management, for not less than 20 percent of the amount of the successful bid. If not paid by the close of the
10. The remainder of the full bid price, whether sealed or oral, must be paid within 180 calendar days of the competitive sale date in the form of a certified check, money order, bank draft, or cashier's check made payable to the order of the Bureau of Land Management. Personal checks will not be accepted for the remaining balance. Failure to pay the full price within the 180 days will disqualify the apparent high bidder and cause the entire bid deposit to be forfeited to the BLM.
11. Oral bids will be considered only if received at the place of sale and made at least for the fair market value as determined by the Authorized Officer.
12. The BLM may accept or reject any or all offers, or withdraw any parcel of land or interest therein from sale, if, in the opinion of the Authorized Officer, consummation of the sale would not be fully consistent with FLPMA or other applicable laws or are determined not to be in the public interest.
13. If not sold, any parcel described above in this Notice may be identified for sale at a later date without further legal notice. Unsold parcels may be put up for sale at future auctions without additional legal notice. Upon publication of this notice and until completion of the sale, the BLM is no longer accepting land use applications affecting any parcel identified for sale. However, land use applications may be considered after completion of the sale for parcels that are not sold through the sealed or oral bidding procedures, provided the authorization will not adversely affect the marketability or value of the parcel.
14. Federal law requires bidders to be U.S. citizens 18 years of age or older; a corporation subject to the laws of any State or of the United States; a State, State Instrumentality, or political subdivision authorized to hold property, or an entity including, but not limited to, associations or partnerships capable of holding property or interests therein under the laws of the State of Nevada.
15. In order to determine the value, through appraisal, of the parcels of land proposed to be sold, certain extraordinary assumptions may have been made of the attributes and limitations of the lands and potential effects of local regulations and policies on potential future land uses. Through publication of this NORA, the BLM gives notice that these assumptions may not be endorsed or approved by units of local government. It is the buyer's responsibility to be aware of all applicable local government policies, laws and regulations that would affect the subject lands, including any required dedication of lands for public uses. It is also the buyer's responsibility to be aware of existing or projected use of nearby properties. When conveyed out of Federal ownership, the lands will be subject to any applicable reviews and approvals by the respective unit of local government for proposed future uses, and any such reviews and approvals will be the responsibility of the buyer. Any land lacking access from a public road or highway will be conveyed as such, and future access acquisition will be the responsibility of the buyer.
Detailed information concerning the sale, including the reservations, sale procedures and conditions, CERCLA and other environmental documents is available for review at the BLM Elko Field Office, or by calling (775) 753-0200. This information will also be available on the Internet at
The general public and interested parties may submit comments regarding the proposed sale and purchase to the Field Manager, BLM Elko Field Office. Comments must be received by the BLM on or before August 16, 2004. Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the Nevada BLM State Director, who may sustain, vacate or modify this realty action in whole or in part. In the absence of any adverse comments, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior.
BLM will not consider anonymous comments. However, individual respondents may request anonymity. If you wish to withhold your name and address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. A request for anonymity will be honored to the extent allowed by law. All submissions from organizations or businesses will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.
43 CFR 2711.1-2(a) and (c).
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
This is notice of a meeting of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee. The next Review Committee meeting is a public teleconference on July 19, 2004, to discuss agenda items for a Review Committee meeting tentatively scheduled for September 18-19, 2004, in Washington, DC, and to elect a Review Committee chair, and to receive presentations and statements by Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, museums, Federal agencies, and the public. Notification of this meeting may appear in the
The meeting via teleconference is on July 19, 2004, from 2 p.m. until approximately 5 p.m. e.d.s.t.
Designated Federal Officer, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee, telephone (202) 354-2206, facsimile (202) 371-5197, e-mail
Authority. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3001
General Information. The Review Committee was established by NAGPRA. Review Committee members are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. The Review Committee is responsible for monitoring the NAGPRA inventory and identification process; reviewing and making findings related to the identity or cultural affiliation of cultural items, or the return of such items; facilitating the resolution of disputes; compiling an inventory of culturally unidentifiable human remains and recommending actions for developing a process for disposition of such remains; consulting with Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations and museums on matters within the scope of the work of the Review Committee affecting such tribes or organizations; consulting with the Secretary of the Interior in the development of regulations to carry out NAGPRA; and making
Transcripts of Review Committee meetings are available approximately 8 weeks after each meeting at the National NAGPRA program office, 1201 Eye Street NW, Washington, DC. To request electronic copies of meeting transcripts, send an e-mail message to
Meeting time and remote locations. The teleconference meeting will begin at 2 p.m. and end at approximately 5 p.m. e.d.s.t. Remote locations for public participation in the teleconference have been established at the following National Park Service offices. Participants will need proper identification and should allow extra time to pass through security at each location.
Washington, DC: Headquarters Office, 1201 Eye Street NW, 7th floor, room 90. From 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. e.d.s.t. Contact Robin Coates, (202) 354-2201.
Boston, MA: Northeast Regional Office, 15 State Street, 4th floor conference room. Enter through the Visitors Center for Boston National Historical Park. From 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. e.d.s.t. Contact Chuck Smythe, (617) 223-5014.
Atlanta, GA: Southeast Regional Office, 100 Alabama St, SW, 1924 Building, 6th floor training room. From 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. e.d.s.t. Contact J. Anthony Paredes, (404) 562-3117.
St. Paul, MN: Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, 111 East Kellogg Blvd, room 212. From 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. c.d.s.t. Contact Michael J. Evans, (651) 290-4165.
Denver, CO: Intermountain Regional Office, 12795 West Alameda Parkway. From noon to 3 p.m. m.d.s.t. Contact Cyd Martin, (303) 969-2868.
Santa Fe, NM: Intermountain Regional Office—Santa Fe, 2968 Rodeo Park Drive West, 2nd floor room 2080. From noon to 3 p.m. m.d.s.t. Contact Ed Lee Natay, (505) 988-6896.
Oakland, CA: Pacific West Regional Office, 111 Jackson Street, 6th floor conference room. From 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. p.d.s.t. Contact Roger Kelly, (510) 817-1400.
Seattle, WA: Pacific West Regional Office, 909 First Avenue, room 560. From 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. p.d.s.t. Contact Fred York, (206) 220-4148.
Anchorage, AK: Alaska Regional Office, remote site will be in the executive dining room, Federal Building, 222 W. 7th Avenue. From 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. a.d.s.t. Contact Janet Cohen, (907) 644-3462.
Honolulu, HI: Pacific Island Support Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard. From 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. h.s.t. Contact Melia Lane-Kamahale, (808) 541-2693, extension 729.
Agenda for the teleconference meeting. The agenda for the July 19, 2004, meeting includes a discussion of agenda items for the Review Committee meeting tentatively scheduled for September 18-19, 2004, in Washington, DC; election of a Review Committee chair; and presentations and statements by Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, museums, Federal agencies, and the public. Persons may submit written statements for the Review Committee's consideration to the Designated Federal Officer, facsimile (202) 371-5197, e-mail
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of public hearings on a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS).
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have prepared a DEIS for the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program. At the public hearings, individuals will have the opportunity to present written or short oral testimony on the environmental impacts of the Program. All testimony will be addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as part of the comment and response process.
The following public hearings are scheduled from 7 to 10 p.m.:
There will be an additional public hearing from 3 to 6 p.m.:
Written comments can also be sent to the Platte River EIS Office until August 20, 2004.
The hearings will be held at:
Written comments are to be submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation, Platte River EIS Office (PL-100), PO Box 25007, Denver, Colorado, 80225-0007, or by e-mail at
Lynn Holt, Platte River EIS Office at the above address, or by telephone at (303) 445-2096, or e-mail at
Organizations and individuals wishing to present statements at the hearings should contact the Bureau of Reclamation, Platte River EIS Office, to announce their intention to participate.
Oral comments at the hearings will be limited to 3-5 minutes, depending upon the number of persons wishing to speak. The hearing facilitator may allow any speaker to provide additional oral comments after all persons wishing to comment have been heard.
Written comments from those unable to attend or those wishing to supplement their oral presentations at the hearings should be received by Reclamation's Platte River EIS Office at the above address by August 20, 2004, for inclusion in the meeting notes.
Comments received in response to this notice will become part of the
On the basis of the record
Pursuant to § 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the
On May 14, 2004, a petition was filed with the Commission and Commerce by Clearon Corp., Fort Lee, NJ, and Occidental Chemical Corp., Dallas, TX, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of chlorinated isocyanurates from China and Spain. Accordingly, effective May 14, 2004, the Commission instituted antidumping duty investigations Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Preliminary).
Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission transmitted its determinations in these investigations to the Secretary of Commerce on June 28, 2004. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3705 (July 2004), entitled
By order of the Commission.
International Trade Commission.
Revised schedule for the subject review.
June 28, 2004.
Fred Fischer (202-205-3179 or
On May 7, 2004, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the subject expedited five-year review (69 FR 28949, May 19, 2004). Subsequently, on June 3, 2004, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) extended the time limit for its final results in the expedited five-year review from June 1, 2004, to not later than June 15, 2004 (69 FR 31354). On June 22, 2004, Commerce again extended the time limit for its final results from June 15, 2004, to not later than June 30, 2004 (69 FR 34652). Commerce published its final results for the subject review on June 28, 2004 (69 FR 36062). The Commission, therefore, has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B),
As provided for in the Commission's original scheduling notice (69 FR 28949, May 19, 2004), final party comments concerning Commerce's final results of its expedited sunset review are due three business days after the issuance of Commerce's results, or in this case by July 1, 2004.
For further information concerning this expedited review see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's rules of practice and procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
International Trade Commission.
July 8, 2004, at 11 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agenda for future meetings: none.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Inv. No. 731-TA-44 (Second Review) (Sorbitol from France)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before July 16, 2004.)
5. Inv. Nos. 701-TA-373 and 731-TA-770-775 (Review) (Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before July 20, 2004.)
6. Outstanding action jackets: none.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
General wage determination decisions of the Secretary of Labor are issued in accordance with applicable law and are based on the information obtained by the Department of Labor from its study of local wage conditions and data made available from other sources. They specify the basic hourly wage rates and fringe benefits which are determined to be prevailing for the described classes of laborers and mechanics employed on construction projects of a similar character and in the localities specified therein.
The determinations in these decisions of prevailing rates and fringe benefits have been made in accordance with 29 CFR Part 1, by authority of the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931, as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 276a) and of other Federal statutes referred to in 29 CFR Part 1, Appendix, as well as such additional statutes as may from time to time be enacted containing provisions for the payment of wages determined to be prevailing by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act. The prevailing rates and fringe benefits determined in these decisions shall, in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing statutes, constitute the minimum wages payable on Federal and federally assisted construction projects to laborers and mechanics of the specified classes engaged on contract work of the character and in the localities described therein.
Good cause is hereby found for not utilizing notice and public comment procedure thereon prior to the issuance of these determinations as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay in the effective date as prescribed in that section, because the necessity to issue current construction industry wage determinations frequently and in large volume causes procedures to be impractical and contrary to the public interest.
General wage determination decisions, and modifications and supersedeas decisions thereto, contain no expiration dates and are effective from their date of notice in the
Any person, organization, or governmental agency having an interest in the rates determined as prevailing is encouraged to submit wage rate and fringe benefit information for consideration by the Department.
Further information and self-explanatory forms for the purpose of submitting this data may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, Division of Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-3014, Washington, DC 20210.
The number of the decisions listed to the Government Printing Office document entitled “General Wage Determinations Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts” being modified are listed by Volume and State. Dates of publication in the
General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, including those noted above, may be found in the Government Printing Office (GPO) document entitled “General Wage determinations Issued Under the Davis-Bacon And Related Acts”. This publication is available at each of the 50 Regional Government Depository Libraries and many of the 1,400 Government Depository Libraries across the country.
General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts are available electronically at no cost on the Government Printing Office site at
Hard-copy subscriptions may be purchased from: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512-1800.
When ordering hard-copy subscription(s), be sure to specify the State(s) of interest, since subscriptions may be ordered for any or all of the six separate Volumes, arranged by State. Subscriptions include an annual edition (issued in January or February) which includes all current general wage determinations for the States covered by each volume. Throughout the remainder of the year, regular weekly updates will be distributed to subscribers.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection under OMB review.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
All comments should be submitted within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication.
All comments should be addressed to Desk Officer for NASA;
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Ms. Nancy Kaplan, NASA Reports Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., Code VE, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-1372,
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is renewing an existing collection which is used to identify all new technologies (
NASA uses both paper and electronic methods to collect this information. Respondents may submit NASA Form 1679, Disclosure of Invention and New Technology, or use the eNTRe system for electronic reporting.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection under OMB review.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
All comments should be submitted within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication.
All comments should be addressed to Desk Officer for NASA; Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Room 10236; New Executive Office Building; Washington, DC 20503.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Ms. Nancy Kaplan, NASA Reports Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., Code VE, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-1372,
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is initiating a new collection designed to assess current levels of customer satisfaction on an Agency-wide basis in key service areas that are managed as part of the NASA Integrated Information Infrastructure Program. The information collected will establish a baseline for future customer satisfaction surveys, and will identify and assist in the implementation of appropriate corrective measures for improved products and services that meet the needs of NASA customers.
NASA will collect this information electronically via a Web-based survey.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Combined Arts Advisory Panel, Literature section (Access to Artistic Excellence category) to the National Council on the Arts will be held on July 28-30, 2004 in Room 714 at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506.
A portion of this meeting, from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. on July 30, will be open to the public for policy discussion. The remaining portions of this meeting, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on July 28-29, and from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. on July 30, will be closed.
The closed portions of these meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation on applications for financial assistance under the National
Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory panels that are open to the public, and if time allows, may be permitted to participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion of the panel chairman.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact the Office of AccessAbility, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, (202) 682-5532, TDY-TDD (202) 682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or call (202) 682-5691.
2 p.m., Thursday, July 22, 2004.
Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
Hearing OPEN to the Public a 2 p.m.
Annual Public Hearing in conjunction with each meeting of OPIC's Board of Directors, to afford an opportunity for any person to present views regarding the activities of the Corporation.
Individuals wishing to address the hearing orally must provide advance notice to OPIC's Corporate Secretary no later than 5 p.m., Friday, July 16, 2004. The notice must include the individual's name, title, organization, address, and telephone number, and a concise summary of the subject matter to be presented.
Oral presentations may not exceed ten (10) minutes. The time for individual presentations may be reduced proportionately, if necessary, to afford all participants who have submitted a timely request to participate an opportunity to be heard.
Participants wishing to submit a written statement for the record must submit a copy of such statement of OPIC's Corporate Secretary no later than 5 p.m., Friday, July 16, 2004. Such statements must be typewritten, double-spaced, and may not exceed twenty-five (25) pages.
Upon receipt of the required notice, OPIC will prepare an agenda for the hearing identifying speakers, setting forth the subject on which each participant will speak, and the time allotted for each presentation. The agenda will be available at the hearing.
A written summary of the hearing will be compiled, and such summary will be made available, upon written request to OPIC's Corporate Secretary, at the cost of reproduction.
Information on the hearing may be obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336-8438, via facsimile at (202) 218-0136, or via e-mail at
In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506 (c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which provides opportunity for public comment on new or revised data collections, the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) will publish periodic summaries of proposed data collections.
Under Section 12 of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), the RRB may pay annuity benefits to a representative payee when an employee, spouse or survivor annuitant is incompetent or a minor. The RRB is responsible for determining if direct payment to an annuitant or a representative payee would best serve the annuitant's best interest. The accountability requirements authorizing the RRB to conduct periodic monitoring of representative payees, including a written accounting of benefit payments received, are prescribed in 20 CFR 266.7.
The RRB utilizes the following forms to conduct its representative payee monitoring program.
Form G-99a, Representative Payee Report, is used to obtain information needed to determine whether the benefit payments certified to the representative payee have been used for the annuitant's current maintenance and personal needs and whether the representative payee continues to be concerned with the annuitant's welfare. The RRB also includes RRB Form G-99a(Enc), Representative Payee Duties, which includes the Paperwork Reduction Act notice and a list of representative payee duties with each RRB Form G-99a released. RRB Form G-99c, Representative Payee Evaluation Report, is used to obtain more detailed information from a representative payee who fails to complete and return Form G-99a, or in situations when the returned Form G-99a indicates the possible misuse of funds by the representative payee. Form G-99c contains specific questions concerning the representative payee's performance and is used by the RRB to determine whether or not the representative payee should continue in that capacity. Completion of the forms in this collection is required to retain benefits.
The RRB proposes non-burden impacting editorial and formatting changes to Form G-99a, largely to clarify instructions. In addition, Form G-99a (Enc) will no longer be a separate form but will become pages 3 and 4 of Form G-99a. No changes are proposed for Form G-99c. The completion time for Form G-99a is estimated at 18 minutes per response. The completion time for Form G-99c is estimated at between 24 to 31 minutes per response. The RRB estimates that approximately 6,000 Form G-99a's and 535 G-99c's are completed annually.
To request more information or to obtain a copy of the information collection justification, forms, and/or supporting
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”),
CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 8.85 to require the immediate display of customer limit orders. The text of the proposed rule change follows. Additions are in
(a) No change.
(b) Agency Transactions. Each DPM shall fulfill all of the obligations of a Floor Broker (to the extent that the DPM acts as a Floor Broker) and of an Order Book Official under the Rules, and shall satisfy each of the [following] requirements
[(i) place in the public order book any order in the possession of the DPM which is eligible for entry into the book unless (A) the DPM executes the order upon its receipt or (B) the customer who placed the order has requested that the order not be booked, and upon receipt of the order, the DPM announces in public outcry the information concerning the order that would be displayed if the order were a displayed order in the public order book;]
(ii)-(v) No change.
(vi) not represent discretionary orders as a Floor Broker or otherwise.
[To the extent that there is any inconsistency between the specific obligations of a DPM set forth in subparagraphs (b)(i) through (b)(vi) of this Rule and the general obligations of a Floor Broker or of an Order Book Official under the Rules, subparagraphs (b)(i) through (b)(vi) of this Rule shall govern.]
(vii) No change.
[To the extent that there is any inconsistency between the specific obligations of a DPM set forth in subparagraphs (b)(i) through (b)(vi) of this Rule and the general obligations of a Floor Broker or of an Order Book Official under the Rules, subparagraphs (b)(i) through (b)(vii) of this Rule shall govern.]
(c)-(e) No change.
No change.
In its filing with the Commission, CBOE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Rule 11Ac1-4 under the Act,
CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 8.85(b)(i) to codify an immediate display requirement with respect to eligible customer limit orders (“Display Obligation”). As proposed, each DPM would be required to display immediately the full price and size of any customer limit order that improves the price or increases the size of the best disseminated CBOE quote. As proposed, CBOE defines “immediately” to mean, under normal market conditions, as soon as practicable but no later than 30-seconds after receipt by the DPM.
CBOE proposes to exempt, or partially exempt, certain order types from the Display Obligation. CBOE also proposes to exempt an order executed upon receipt and an order where the customer who placed it requests that it not be displayed, and upon receipt of the order, the DPM announces in public outcry the information concerning the order that would be displayed if the order were subject to being displayed. CBOE further proposes that orders delivered immediately upon receipt to another options exchange that is a participant in the Intermarket Options Linkage Plan be exempted from the Display Obligation.
CBOE also proposes to exempt the following types of orders from its Display Obligation:
Market-if-Touched (CBOE Rule 6.53(c)(i)) and Stop (stop-loss) Orders (CBOE Rule 6.53(c)(iii))—These orders are not executable until the market reaches a specified “trigger” price, at which point each converts to a market order. As such, they are not available to trade and have no standing in the quoted markets until the specified price trigger is reached. A trade must be the triggering event for a Market-if-Touched order; a trade or a quote can be the triggering event for a Stop order. Because they convert to market orders upon the triggering event, these order types cannot then be subject to the display requirement. Instead, they are subject to the firm quote requirements.
Market on Close Orders (“MOC”) (CBOE Rule 6.53(c)(ii))—While an MOC may have a limit price attached, it is not eligible for representation until the close of trading is imminent. Regardless of the time at which an MOC order is entered, the DPM is required to hold such order, and is precluded from representing, displaying or booking it, until as near as possible to the close of trading. Furthermore, because representation and execution of these orders must occur on or as near to the close of trading as possible, it would be difficult if not impossible to determine whether members met an appropriate display standard for such orders.
Stop Limit Order (CBOE Rule 6.53(c)(iv))—A Stop-Limit order is not “triggered” until the option contract trades or is bid (offered) at or above (below) the stop price, at which point it converts to a limit order. As such, a Stop-Limit order has no standing in the quoted markets until the specified price trigger is reached. The limit price on such an order is not required to be the same as the stop price. The resulting new limit order is subject to the current and proposed display requirement if routed to a DPM. Currently, these orders are not eligible for electronic routing and are generally handled by non-DPM agents.
Not Held Orders (CBOE Rule 6.53(g))—A Not Held order is a discretionary order with instructions granting the agent flexibility as to the price and or time of execution. CBOE Rule 8.85(b)(vi) prohibits DPMs from representing discretionary orders, including Not Held orders.
One-Cancels-the-Other Orders (“OCO”) (CBOE Rule 6.53(h))—An OCO order is comprised of two or more orders designated for treatment as a collective unit. The execution of any one of the component orders cancels the other(s). If the DPM cannot execute any of the orders upon receipt, then none can be displayed or booked as doing so could result in the approximate simultaneous execution of more than one component order, in direct contravention of the primary order condition. Such a result would place the agent and/or customer at undue risk. OCO orders are generally not handled by a DPM agent due to the specialized nature of the order handling required.
All or None Orders (“AON”) (CBOE Rule 6.53(i))—While an AON can be a limit order, instructions require the order be executed in its entirety or not at all. The Commission's Limit Order Display Rule also provides an exception for AON orders.
Fill or Kill Orders (“FOK”) (CBOE Rule 6.53(j))—While a FOK order can be a limit order, instructions require it be executed in its entirety immediately upon representation and, if not executed, the order is to be treated as cancelled. CBOE Rule 6.44.04 currently specifies that FOK bids or offers be treated as AONs and specifies that such bids and offers will not be disseminated by CBOE in its quotes.
Immediate or Cancel Orders (“IOC”) (CBOE Rule 6.53(k))—An IOC order is a market or limit order which is to be executed in whole or in part as soon as such order is represented in the trading crowd. Any portion not executed is to be cancelled, which means it cannot be displayed. An IOC order, like an FOK order, shares most of the same characteristics of an AON order, which are exempt from the Commission's Limit Order Display Rule.
Complex Orders: Spread (CBOE Rule 6.53(d))
Orders Received During a Trading Rotation: Orders received before or during a trading rotation (as defined in CBOE Rules 6.2, 6.2A, and 6.2B) would be exempt from the 30-second standard. During a rotation, CBOE systems attempt to find the opening price and until the opening price is established, there is no disseminated market. Once the trading rotation ends and regular trading begins, orders received before or during the trading rotation will be subject to the display requirement.
Large Sized Orders: The Commission's Limit Order Display Rule provides a general exclusion for block size orders of at least 10,000 shares.
Finally, CBOE proposes to relocate the last paragraph of CBOE Rule 8.85(b) to the introductory paragraph of CBOE Rule 8.85(b).
The Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose a burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or,
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. 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-CBOE-2004-35. 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”),
In January 2004, the CBOE implemented a six-month pilot program (“Pilot Program”), which expires on June 29, 2004, that permits quote spread parameters of up to $5, regardless of the price of the bid, for up to 200 options classes traded on the CBOE's Hybrid Trading System (“Hybrid”).
(a) No change.
(b) No change.
(i)-(iii) No change.
(iv) No change.
(A) [For a six month period expiring on June 29, 2004]
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Pilot Program became effective in January 2004 and designated 200 options classes that, for a six-month period, could be quoted with a difference not to exceed $5 between the bid and offer regardless of the price of the bid.
The Pilot Program expires on June 29, 2004. As part of the Pilot Program, the CBOE committed to prepare and submit to the Commission a report assessing the operation of the Pilot Program and, in particular, the quality of the quotations for the options included in the Pilot Program. The CBOE is in the process of preparing the report and anticipates submitting it to the Commission shortly. Given the impending expiration of the Pilot Program, however, the CBOE requests a one-month extension of the Pilot Program, through July 29, 2004, to allow the Commission to review the report and consider a subsequent CBOE request to make the Pilot Program permanent.
The CBOE believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received.
The CBOE has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
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, Rule 19b-
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will permit the Pilot Program to continue without interruption through July 29, 2004.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes 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-CBOE-2004-36. 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 proposed rule change would allow DTC to expand the application of its Look-Ahead process to all equity transactions and to all valued pledge and valued release transactions.
In its filing with the Commission, DTC 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. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
Currently, DTC's Look-Ahead process reduces transaction blockage for debt securities. To do so, the Look-Ahead processing system identifies a receive transaction pending due to a net debit cap insufficiency and determines if there is an offsetting delivery transaction pending because of a quantity deficiency in the same security that would permit both transactions to be completed in compliance with DTC's risk management system controls. The system calculates the net effect of offsetting transactions in the accounts of the three participants involved. If the net effect of the transaction is in positive risk management controls in all three accounts, the transactions will be completed. As a result of this reduced blockage, participants have experienced improved timeliness of transactions completing in the system, increased trade certainty, and improved straight-through processing.
To extend and benefits of the Look-Ahead process, DTC proposes to expand the Look-Ahead process to include all equity transactions and to include all valued pledge and valued release
The proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of section 17A(b)(3)(A) of the Act
DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act.
DTC has discussed this rule change proposal in its current form with various participants and industry groups. DTC advised participants of the proposed enhancements in Important Notice #5749 (January 22, 2004).
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change 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-DTC-2004-05. 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”),
On March 19, 2003, the Commission approved an ISE proposal to establish a pilot program permitting the allowable quotation spread for options on up to 50 equity securities to be $5, regardless of the price of the bid (“Pilot Program”).
.01 Pursuant to paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 803, during a pilot period expiring on [June]
(b) Inapplicable.
(c) Inapplicable.
In its filing with the Commission, the ISE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The ISE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The ISE's rules contain maximum quotation spread requirements that vary from $.25 to $1.00, depending on the price of the option. On March 19, 2003, the Commission approved a proposal to amend ISE Rule 803, “Obligations of Market Makers,” to establish a six-month Pilot Program in which the allowable quotation spread for options on up to 50 underlying equity securities would be $5, regardless of the price of the bid.
The ISE believes that the Pilot Program has been successful, and the ISE has filed a proposal with the Commission to make the Pilot Program permanent.
The purpose of the current proposal is to extend the Pilot Program until July 29, 2004, while the Commission considers the ISE's proposal to make the Pilot Program permanent. During the extension and pursuant to the May 2004 Notice,
According to the ISE, the statutory basis for the proposal is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The ISE does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The ISE has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on the proposed rule change. The ISE has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
The ISE has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
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, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The ISE has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay to prevent a lapse in the operation of the Pilot Program.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will permit the Pilot Program to continue without interruption through July 29, 2004.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes 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-ISE-2004-23. 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”),
NASD is proposing to amend: (1) Rule 6210 to amend two defined terms and add a new defined term; (2) Rule 6250 to expand dissemination to include all TRACE-eligible securities
Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in
(a) through (g) No Change
(h) The term “Investment Grade” shall mean
(i) The term “Non-Investment Grade” shall mean
[(a) General Dissemination Standard
Immediately upon receipt of transaction reports received at or after 8:00 a.m. through 6:29:59 p.m. Eastern Time, NASD will disseminate transaction information (except that market aggregate information and last
(1) A TRACE-eligible security that is Investment Grade at the time of receipt of the transaction report and has an initial issuance size of $1 billion or greater.
(2) A TRACE-eligible security that is Non-Investment Grade at the time of receipt of the transaction report and is designated by NASD for dissemination according to the following criteria.
(A) The staff of NASD will designate fifty of the most actively traded Non-Investment Grade securities that are TRACE-eligible securities for dissemination under this rule, based on (i) the security's volume; (ii) the security's price; (iii) the security's name recognition; (iv) the research following of the security; (v) the security having a minimum number of bonds outstanding; (vi) the security being traded routinely by at least two dealers; and (vii) the security contributing to a representation of diverse industry groups in the group of securities designated for dissemination.
(B) A Non-Investment Grade security will not be designated, and may be immediately withdrawn from designation, for dissemination under this rule if the security: (i) has matured; (ii) has been called; (iii) has been upgraded to Investment Grade; or (iv) has been downgraded to an extent that the security's trading characteristics do not warrant designation for dissemination.
(3) A TRACE-eligible security that is Investment Grade, is rated by Moody's Investors Service, Inc. as “A3”
[
[
(4) Ninety to 120 TRACE-eligible securities designated by NASD that are rated “Baa/BBB” at the time of designation, according to the following standards.
(A) Three groups, each composed of up to 50 TRACE-eligible securities (Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3), but collectively not exceeding 120, shall be designated by NASD. At the time of designation, each TRACE-eligible security in Group 1 must be rated “Baa1/BBB+” and each TRACE-eligible security in Group 2 and Group 3, must be rated, respectively, “Baa2/BBB” and “Baa3/BBB-.” If a TRACE-eligible security is rated one of the “Baa” ratings by Moody's and one of the “BBB” ratings by S&P and the ratings indicate two different levels of credit quality, the lower of the two ratings will be used to determine the group to which a debt security will be assigned under this paragraph (a)(4).
(B) A TRACE-eligible security that has a rating from only one rating agency will not be designated under paragraph (a)(4).
(C) Dissemination of transaction information on a TRACE-eligible security that is designated under paragraph (a)(4) will not be discontinued if one rating is, or both ratings, are downgraded or upgraded.]
[(b) Transactions Excluded From Market Aggregate, Last Sale
All trade reports in TRACE-eligible securities that are approved for dissemination and submitted to TRACE at or after 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time and prior to 5:15 p.m. Eastern Time will be included in the calculation of market aggregates and last sale except:
(1) trades reported on an “as of” basis;
(2) “when issued” trades executed on a yield basis;
(3) trades in baby bonds with a par value of less than $1,000;
(4) trades in which the price is determined by a weighted average price; and
(5) trades in which the price is a “special price,” as indicated by the use of the special price modifier.]
(1) Reports of transactions in TRACE-eligible securities that are subject to dissemination, are executed on a business day at or after 6:30 p.m. Eastern Time through 11:59:59 p.m. Eastern Time, and are reported pursuant to Rule 6230(a)(2) on the next business day and designated “as/of” will be disseminated beginning at 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time on the day of receipt. The reported information will not be included in the calculation of the day's market aggregates.
(2) Reports of transactions in TRACE-eligible securities that are subject to dissemination, are executed on a business day at or after 12:00 a.m. Eastern Time through 7:59:59 a.m. Eastern Time, and are reported pursuant to Rule 6230(a)(3) on the same day beginning at 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time will be disseminated upon receipt. The reported information will be included in the calculation of the day's market aggregates, except as otherwise provided in Rule 6250(b)(1) through (5).]
Reports of transactions in TRACE-eligible securities that are subject to dissemination, are executed on a non-business day at any time during the day, and are reported pursuant to Rule 6230(a)(4) on the next business day will be disseminated upon receipt. The reported information will not be included in the calculation of the day's market aggregates.]
For such [TRACE-eligible securities]new issues, the managing underwriter
In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in item IV below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
i. Introduction and Background
In this proposed rule change, NASD is proposing to amend Rule 6250 to disseminate publicly transaction information for secondary market transactions in all TRACE-eligible securities, and to make related amendments to Rule 6210 and Rule 6260 to facilitate dissemination. The proposed amendments will result in NASD disseminating all TRACE-eligible securities transactions, except transactions executed pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933.
NASD is also proposing amendments to Rule 6210 and Rule 6260. In Rule 6210, NASD is proposing to amend the definitions of “Investment Grade” and “Non-Investment Grade” and to add a new defined term, “split-rated.” In Rule 6260, NASD is proposing to amend the notification requirements, which will aid NASD in identifying new issues of TRACE-eligible securities and the dissemination protocols that apply to them.
NASD is also proposing that the proposed amendments to Rule 6250 regarding dissemination be implemented in two stages, Stage One and Stage Two, because certain aspects of the proposal providing for delayed dissemination will require significant operational and technical changes to NASD's TRACE System. Finally, not later than nine months after the implementation of Stage Two, NASD will review and consider the effects of the amendments to Rule 6250 on the trading of TRACE-eligible securities, and review the dissemination provisions then in effect.
The dissemination proposal was developed in consultation with the Bond Transaction Reporting Committee (“BTRC”), an advisory committee to the NASD Board of Governors.
Initial concerns of certain market participants focused on the possible impact that increased transparency may have on market liquidity. After extensive examination of approximately 18 months of TRACE data and review of two studies performed by an outside econometric team, NASD found no conclusive evidence that TRACE transparency has adversely affected liquidity. Accordingly, NASD believes full transparency is warranted. As noted above, the proposed rule change will result in dissemination of all public secondary market transactions in TRACE-eligible securities, with approximately 99 percent of total transactions and 95 percent of total par value traded being immediately disseminated.
However, there are two areas of possible concern where NASD currently believes that a more measured approach toward immediate dissemination is in the best interest of investors and the corporate bond market. First, both institutional investors and dealers have expressed concern that liquidity could be harmed by the immediate
NASD intends to continue to review the trading and the liquidity in TRACE-eligible securities during the implementation of Stages One and Two of the proposed rule change. As part of this review process, not later than nine months from the implementation of Stage Two, NASD will ask the BTRC to reconvene to review the rule and make recommendations to the NASD Board of Governors.
In current Rule 6250, NASD requires the dissemination of transaction information for four categories of securities: (1) A TRACE-eligible security that is Investment Grade at the time of receipt of the transaction report and has an initial issuance size of $1 billion or greater;
NASD is proposing that dissemination for TRACE-eligible securities that are rated by an NRSRO or classified by NASD for purposes of TRACE as BBB or lower be subject to special dissemination provisions during a brief period beginning with the day a newly issued security is priced, and ending, alternatively, after either two business days (“New Issue Aftermarket-2”) or ten business days (“New Issue Aftermarket-10”),
Transactions in newly issued TRACE-eligible securities rated by an NRSRO or classified by NASD for purposes of TRACE as BBB executed during their New Issue Aftermarket-2 will be subject to a dissemination delay. NASD will disseminate the withheld transaction information on all transactions executed during the New Issue Aftermarket-2 starting on the next (third) business day in accordance with NASD dissemination protocols.
Transactions in newly issued TRACE-eligible securities rated by an NRSRO or classified by NASD for purposes of TRACE as BB (or the equivalent rating of one or more NRSROs) or lower executed during their New Issue Aftermarket-10 will also be subject to a dissemination delay. NASD will disseminate the withheld transaction information on all transactions executed during the New Issue Aftermarket-10 starting on the next (eleventh) business day, according to dissemination protocols established by NASD. Transaction information that is withheld pursuant to proposed Rule 6250(a)(1) and (a)(2) will be disseminated, in the order of the date and time of execution of the transactions.
NASD is proposing to add new Rule 6250(b)(1) to require that the following types of transactions be disseminated immediately upon receipt: (i) transactions in any Investment Grade TRACE-eligible security rated by an NRSRO or classified by NASD for purposes of TRACE as A or higher; (ii) transactions in a TRACE-eligible security rated by an NRSRO or classified by NASD for purposes of TRACE as BBB that are executed other than during its New Issue Aftermarket-2; and; (iii) transactions in a TRACE-eligible security rated by an NRSRO or classified by NASD for purposes of TRACE as BB (or the equivalent rating of one or more NRSROs) or lower that are executed other than during its New Issue Aftermarket-10, if the size of the transaction is $1 million or less (par value), or the size is greater than $1 million (par value), and the security is traded, on average, one or more times per day.
NASD is also proposing in Rule 6250(b)(2) that certain transactions in TRACE-eligible securities rated by an NRSRO or classified by NASD for purposes of TRACE as BB (or the equivalent rating of one or more NRSROs) or lower (other than those executed during the subject security's New Issue Aftermarket-10) be subject to either a two-business-day or four-business-day delay before the transaction information is disseminated. Under proposed Rule 6250(b)(2)(A), NASD will disseminate transaction information two business days from the time of execution of the transaction when the transaction meets the
For purposes of calculating the average daily trading of a security pursuant to proposed Rule 6250(b)(1)(C)(ii), Rule 6250(b)(2)(A)(ii) and Rule 6250(b)(2)(B)(ii), NASD, where applicable, will review a security's trading during its New Issue Aftermarket-10 to determine the appropriate dissemination protocol. That dissemination protocol will remain in effect for the security, until the next established calculation timeframe occurs. That calculation timeframe will be based on the trading activity during the last 20 business days of a 90-day period determined by NASD (“20/90 period”). Unlike a New Issue Aftermarket-10, where the timing is specific to the security, the 20/90 period will be established quarterly and will apply to all Non-Investment Grade TRACE-eligible securities.
NASD is proposing to prohibit the dissemination of secondary market transactions effected pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933. Although subject to TRACE reporting requirements, such transactions will not be subject to dissemination. This proposed change codifies the staff's position that securities that are resold pursuant to Rule 144A, although reported to TRACE for regulatory purposes, are not subject to the dissemination provisions of Rule 6250.
Rule 6210(h) currently defines an “Investment Grade” security as a TRACE-eligible security rated by an NRSRO “in one of its four highest generic rating categories.” Rule 6210(i) currently defines “Non-Investment Grade” as a TRACE-eligible security “that is unrated, non-rated, split-rated (where one rating falls below Investment Grade), or otherwise does not meet the definition of Investment Grade as defined in Rule 6210(h).” To effectively implement the dissemination provisions in proposed Rule 6250, NASD has determined to amend the definitions of “Investment Grade” and “Non-Investment Grade,” and to add a new defined term, “split-rated” in proposed Rule 6210(j).
As noted above, TRACE rules currently classify TRACE-eligible securities as either “Investment Grade” or “Non-Investment Grade,” and, in the current TRACE Rules, “split-rated” means that the ratings assigned to a TRACE-eligible security are split between those two sectors (
First, NASD is proposing to amend the defined terms, “Investment Grade” and “Non-Investment Grade,” in Rule 6210(h) and Rule 6210(i), respectively, to state explicitly that when a TRACE-eligible security is rated by only one NRSRO, or is rated by several NRSROs and the ratings that such NRSROs assign to the security are all in one of the four highest generic rating categories (or, conversely, all are in rating categories that are lower than the four highest such categories), the security will be categorized as Investment Grade (or Non-Investment Grade) in accordance with the one rating, or the multiple, similar ratings.
If the TRACE-eligible security is rated by more than one NRSRO and not all of the ratings are in one of the four highest generic rating categories (
Parallel provisions apply to classify TRACE-eligible securities as Non-Investment Grade securities. If rated by more than one NRSRO, and rated lower than one of the four highest generic rating categories by
NASD is proposing Rule 6210(j), “split-rated,” to state explicitly how NASD will classify an Investment Grade or a Non-Investment Grade TRACE-eligible security for purposes of TRACE when the security is rated by more than one NRSRO and the specific generic ratings do not fall uniformly in one generic rating category. NASD defines “split-rated” to mean “an Investment Grade or a Non-Investment Grade security that is assigned ratings by multiple NRSROs that, for an Investment Grade security, are not in the same generic Investment Grade rating category, or for a Non-Investment Grade security, are not in the same generic Non-Investment Grade rating category.” The definition then sets forth principles to apply to determine the specific generic rating for purposes of TRACE. First, after NASD determines if a security is Investment Grade or Non-Investment Grade according to the principles set forth in, respectively, Rule 6210(h) and (i), NASD then disregards any rating, for an Investment Grade security, that is Non-Investment Grade, and, for a Non-Investment Grade security, that is Investment Grade. Then, with respect to an Investment Grade security, if multiple NRSROs assign ratings that are not in the same generic Investment Grade rating category, or, with respect to a Non-Investment Grade security, if multiple NRSROs assign ratings that are not in the same generic Non-Investment Grade rating category, the following three principles apply to determine the specific rating for purposes of TRACE. First, NASD will classify the TRACE-eligible security by the generic rating that a majority or, if no majority, a plurality of such NRSROs assigns the security.
When TRACE-eligible securities are not rated, NASD is proposing to “classify” the securities as Investment Grade or Non-Investment Grade, then more specifically in a generic rating category in order for them to be disseminated under the proposed dissemination rules, and any other provision of TRACE, if applicable. A determination is necessary because the rating (or, otherwise, the classification) of a TRACE-eligible security is a key dissemination criterion under proposed Rule 6250. NASD is amending Rule 6210(h) and Rule 6210(i) to provide for such classifications.
First, NASD may make a determination that, for the purposes of TRACE dissemination, an unrated TRACE-eligible security should be classified “
However, there may be instances when a TRACE-eligible security is unrated and there is not sufficient information available to NASD to make a determination, whether the security is newly issued or has been outstanding for some time. In such cases, NASD will classify the TRACE-eligible security as a “Non-Investment Grade” security that is rated B (or the equivalent rating of one or more other NRSROs) for purposes of dissemination. The basis for considering the TRACE-eligible security as a B-rated security (or the equivalent rating of one or more other NRSROs) is that the security will be disseminated according to the most conservative dissemination provisions, as a result of this administrative classification. NASD believes that this is a logical approach because such unrated securities often are considered distressed debt.
Rule 6260 currently requires a managing underwriter of a newly issued TRACE-eligible security to obtain and provide certain information to NASD's TRACE Operations Center. Rule 6260(b) requires the member to provide: “(1) the CUSIP number [of the new security]; (2) the issuer name; (3) the coupon rate; (4) the maturity; (5) whether Rule 144A applies; (6) a brief description of the issue; and (7) information, as determined by NASD, that is required to determine if a TRACE-eligible security must be disseminated under Rule 6250 (
If an issuer notifies a managing underwriter, or the issuer and the managing underwriter determine, that the TRACE-eligible securities of the issuer shall be priced, offered and sold the same business day in an intra-day offering under Rule 415 of the Securities Act of 1933 or Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933, the managing underwriter shall provide the information not later than 5:00 p.m. on the day that the securities are priced and offered, provided that if such securities are priced and offered on or after 5:00 p.m., the managing underwriter shall provide the information not later than 5:00 p.m. on the next business day.
All references are to Eastern Time.
NASD is proposing to amend Rule 6260(b) to require that when NASD is notified of a new issue, the managing underwriter or a group of underwriters that is required to provide the information (
With the intent of providing transaction information on a more flexible basis to better meet the changing needs of the market place, NASD is proposing to delete the provisions in Rule 6250 relating to the administration, calculation, and dissemination of “market aggregate” and “last sale” data for disseminated securities, and the treatment of TRACE-eligible securities traded after the TRACE System has closed or on a non-business day. Specifically, NASD is proposing to delete current paragraph (b) or Rule 6250, entitled, “Transactions Excluded From Market Aggregate, Last Sale,” paragraph (c) of Rule 6250, entitled, “Dissemination of Certain Trades Executed on A Business Day,” and paragraph (d) of Rule 6250, entitled, “Dissemination of Trades Executed on Non-Business Day.” NASD will establish policies for the administration, calculation and dissemination of “market aggregate” and “last sale” data that will incorporate the concepts set forth in the proposed amendments to Rule 6250 providing for both immediate and delayed dissemination of transaction information. NASD will publish information concerning the above in various media (
NASD will continue to treat transactions described in paragraphs (c) and (d) of Rule 6250 in the same manner as set forth in the Rule, provided the treatment is consistent with the proposed amendments to Rule 6250 requiring delayed dissemination and continues to meet the needs of the market place. The treatment of transactions executed after the TRACE System closes, and on weekends and holidays will be set forth in a published policy. Again, NASD will publish information concerning the above in various media (
As noted above, NASD is proposing that the dissemination provisions be implemented in two stages because NASD must make significant operational and technical enhancements to the TRACE System, to implement certain aspects of the proposal.
NASD is implementing these provisions as Stage Two, because the provisions cannot become effective until NASD has enhanced the TRACE System. By phasing the proposed rules in using two stages, NASD will not delay the implementation of nearly all of the dissemination provisions in Rule 6250(b)(1), which will have the greatest impact on increasing transparency. Stage Two will become effective on December 1, 2004.
Finally, as discussed previously, NASD intends to continue to review the trading and the liquidity in TRACE-eligible securities during the implementation of Stages One and Two of the proposed rule change. As part of this review process, not later than nine months from the implementation of Stage Two, NASD will ask the BTRC to reconvene to review the rule. Based on the reviews, the BTRC and NASD staff will make recommendations to the NASD Board. The NASD Board will review the recommendations and will decide whether to amend the dissemination provisions then in effect.
NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change 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-2004-094. 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 Exchange proposes to extend the termination date of pilot Exchange Rule 12.6, Interpretation .02, which requires an Exchange Designated Dealer (“Specialist”) to better the price of a customer limit order held by the Specialist if the Specialist decides to trade with an incoming market or marketable limit order.
The Exchange seeks to extend the pilot through June 30, 2005.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below and is set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to extend its pilot Interpretation .02 under Exchange Rule 12.6,
The purpose of the Interpretation is to prevent a Specialist from taking unfair advantage of customer limit orders held by that Specialist by trading with incoming market or marketable limit orders ahead of such orders. Although a Specialist may price-improve incoming orders by providing prices superior to that of the customer limit orders that he or she holds, customers should have a reasonable expectation to have their orders filled at their limit order prices. This expectation should be reflected in reasonable access to incoming contra-side order flow, unless other customers place better-priced limit orders with the Specialist or the Specialist materially improves upon the prices of the customer limit order that he or she holds (not the customers' quoted prices).
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any inappropriate burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange asserts that the proposed rule change is immediately effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative date in this case, and the Commission hereby grants this request.
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 SR-NSX-2004-04. 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 NYSE is proposing to amend Sections 102.01C, 103.01B, 802.01B, and 802.01C of the NYSE's Listed Company Manual regarding the minimum numerical original and continued listing standards. Proposed new language is
(I)
(2) Adjustments
(a) Application of Use of Proceeds. If a company is in registration with the SEC and is in the process of an equity offering, adjustments should be made to reflect the net proceeds of that offering, and the specified intended application(s) of such proceeds to:
(i) Pay off existing debt. The adjustment will include elimination of the actual historical interest on debt being retired with offering proceeds of all relevant periods. If the event giving rise to the adjustment occurred during a time-period such that pro forma amounts are not set forth in the SEC registration statement (typically, the pro
(ii) Fund an acquisition
(1) The adjustments will include those applicable with respect to acquisition(s) to be funded with the proceeds. Adjustments will be made that are disclosed as such in accordance with Rule 3-05 “Financial Statements of Business Acquired or to be Acquired” and Article 11 of Regulation S-X. Adjustments will be made for all the relevant periods for those acquisitions for which historical financial information of the acquiree is required to be disclosed in the SEC registration statement; and
(2) Adjustments applicable to any period for which pro forma numbers are not set forth in the registration statement shall be accompanied by the relevant adjusted financial data to combine the historical results of the acquiree (or relevant portion thereof) and acquirer, as disclosed in the company's SEC filing. Under SEC rules, the number of periods disclosed depends upon the significance level of the acquiree to the acquirer. The adjustments will include those necessary to reflect (a) the allocation of the purchase price, including adjusting assets and liabilities of the acquiree to fair value recognizing any intangibles (and associated amortization and depreciation), and (b) the effects of additional financing to complete the acquisition. The company must prepare the relevant adjusted financial data to reflect the adjustment to its historical financial data, and its outside audit firm must provide a report of having applied agreed-upon procedures with respect to such adjustments. Such report must be prepared in accordance with the standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
(b) Acquisitions and Dispositions: In instances other than acquisitions (and related dispositions of part of the acquiree) funded with the use of proceeds, adjustments will be made for those acquisitions and dispositions that are disclosed as such in a company's financial statements in accordance with Rule 3-05 “Financial Statements of Business Acquired or to be Acquired” and Article 11 of Regulation S-X. If the disclosure does not specify pre-tax earnings from continuing operations, minority interest, and equity in the earnings or losses of investees, then such data must be prepared by the company's outside audit firm for the Exchange's consideration. In this regard, the audit firm would have to issue an independent accountant's report on applying agreed-upon procedures in accordance with the standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
(c) Exclusion of Merger or Acquisition Related Costs Recorded under Pooling of Interests;
(d) Exclusion of Charges or Income Specifically Disclosed in the Applicant's SEC Filing for the Following:
(i) In connection with exiting an activity for the following:
(1) Costs of severance and termination benefits
(2) Costs and associated revenues and expenses associated with the elimination and reduction of product lines
(3) Costs to consolidate or re-locate plant and office facilities
(4) Loss or gain on disposal of long-lived assets
(ii) Environmental clean-up costs
(iii) Litigation settlements;
(e) Exclusion of Impairment Charges on Long-lived Assets (goodwill, property, plant, and equipment, and other long-lived assets);
(f) Exclusion of Gains or Losses Associated with Sales of a Subsidiary's or Investee's Stock;
(g) Exclusion of In-Process Purchased Research and Development Charges;
(h) Regulation S-X Article 11 Adjustments; Adjustments will include those contained in a company's pro forma financial statements provided in a current filing with the SEC pursuant to SEC rules and regulations governing Article 11 “Pro forma information of Regulation S-X Part 210—Form and Content of and Requirements for Financial Statements”;
(i) Exclusion of the Cumulative Effect of Adoption of New Accounting Standards (APB Opinion No. 20)
(II)
(1) [not less than] a
(2)
(3)
[OR
(III) For companies with not less than $1 billion in total worldwide market capitalization and with not less than $100 million revenues in the recent fiscal year, there are no additional financial requirements. For such companies listing in connection with an IPO, the market capitalization valuation must be demonstrated by written representation from the underwriter (or, in the case of a spin-off, by a written representation from the parent company's investment banker or other financial advisor) of the total market capitalization of the company upon completion of the offering (or distribution). For all other such companies, the market capitalization valuation will be determined over a six-month average.]
(E) Only adjustments arising from events specifically so indicated in the company's SEC filing(s) as to both categorization and amount can and must be made. Any such adjustment applies only in the year in which the event occurred except with regard to the use of proceeds or acquisitions and dispositions. Any company for which the Exchange relies on adjustments in granting clearance must include all relevant adjusted financial data in its listing application as specified in Para. 702.04, and disclose the use of adjustments by including a statement in a press release (i) that additional information is available upon which the NYSE relied to list the company and is included in the listing application and (ii) that such information is available to the public upon request.
(F) [The above-referenced adjustments are measured and recognized]
[(IV) Affiliated Company Standard
(1) Market capitalization of $500,000,000 million or greater (as evidenced by written representation from the underwriter, company, or its investment advisor);
(2) Minimum of 12 months of operations (although it is not required to have been a separate corporate entity for such period);
(1) Parent or affiliated company is a listed company in good standing (as evidenced by written representation from the company or its financial advisor excluding that portion of the balance sheet attributable to the new entity); and
(2) Parent/affiliated company retains control* of the entity or is under common control* with the entity.
“Control” for these purposes will mean the ability to exercise significant influence over operating and financial policies, and will be presumed to exist when the parent involved holds directly or indirectly 20% or more of the entity's voting stock. Other indicia that may be taken into account for this purpose include board representation, participation in policy making processes, material intercompany transactions, interchange of managerial personnel, and technological dependency. This test is taken from and intended to be consistent with generally accepted accounting principles regarding use of the equity method of accounting for an investment in common stock.]
(I)
(1) Pre-tax earnings from continuing operations and after minority interest, amortization and equity in the earnings or losses of investees adjusted [(C)(D)] for items specified in para. 102.01C(I)(2)(a) through (i) above, and 103.01B(I)(2) below, must total at least[:] $100,000,000 in the aggregate for the last three fiscal years [together] with a minimum of $25,000,000 in each of the most recent two
(2) Additional Adjustment
(3) Reconciliation to U.S. GAAP of the third year back would only be required if the Exchange determines that reconciliation is necessary to demonstrate that the aggregate $100,000,000 threshold is satisfied.
(II)
(1) [not less than]
(2)
(3) [demonstrate from the operating activity section of its cash flow statement that its operating cash flow excluding changes in operating assets and liabilities is] at least $100,000,000 [in the ] aggregate
Reconciliation to U.S. GAAP of the third
(1)
(2)
(III) For companies with not less than $1 billion in total worldwide market capitalization and with not less than $100 million revenues in the recent fiscal year, there are no additional financial requirements. For such companies listing in connection with an IPO, the market capitalization valuation must be demonstrated by a written representation from the underwriter (or, in the case of a spin-off, by a written representation from the parent company's investment banker, other financial advisor or transfer agent) of the total market capitalization of the company upon completion of the offering (or distribution). For all other such companies, the market capitalization valuation will be determined over a six-month average.]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(C) Only adjustments arising from events specifically so indicated in the company's SEC filing(s) as to both categorization and amount can and must be made. Any such adjustments apply only in the year in which the event occurred except with regard to the use of proceeds or acquisitions and dispositions. Any company for which the Exchange relies on adjustments in granting clearance must include all relevant adjusted financial data in its listing application as specified in Para. 702.04, and disclose the use of adjustments by including a statement in a press release (i) that additional information is available upon which the NYSE relied to list the company and is included in the listing application and (ii) that such information is available to the public upon request.
(D) Interested parties should apply the list of adjustments in accordance with any relevant accounting literature, such as that published by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB), the Accounting Principles Board (“APB”), the Emerging Issues Task Force (“EITF”), the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (“AICPA”), and the SEC. Any literature is intended to guide issuers and investors regarding the affected adjustment listed. If successor interpretations (or guidelines) are published with respect to any particular adjustment, the most recent relevant interpretations (or guidelines) should be consulted.
[(IV) Affiliated Company Standard
(1) Market capitalization of $500 million or greater (as evidenced by written representation from the underwriter, company, or its investment advisor);
(2) Minimum of 12 months of operations (although it is not required to have been a separate corporate entity for such period);
(3) Parent or affiliated company is a listed company in good standing (as evidenced by written representation from the company or its financial advisor excluding that portion of the balance sheet attributable to the new entity); and
(4) Parent/affiliated company retains control* of the entity or is under common control* with the entity.
*“Control” for these purposes will mean the ability to exercise significant influence over operating and financial policies, and will be presumed to exist when the parent involved holds directly or indirectly 20% or more of the entity's voting stock. Other indicia that may be taken into account for this purpose include board representation, participation in policymaking processes, material intercompany transactions, interchange of managerial personnel, and technological dependency. This test is taken from and intended to be consistent with generally accepted accounting principles regarding use of the equity method of accounting for an investment in common stock.]
The Exchange would normally give consideration to delisting a security either a domestic or non-U.S. issuer when:
[If]
(i) [A]
(ii) [A]
[(iii) For companies that qualified for original listing under the “global market capitalization” standard:]
(i)
(ii)
(i)
(ii)
When applying the market capitalization test in any of the above [three]
[Affiliated Companies—Will not be subject to the $50,000,000 average global market capitalization and stockholders' equity test unless the parent/affiliated company no longer controls the entity or such parent/affiliated company itself falls below the continued listing standards described in this section.]
Funds, REITs and Limited Partnerships [—] will be subject to immediate suspension and delisting procedures if
The Exchange will notify the Fund, REIT or limited partnership if the average market capitalization falls below [$25,000,000]
Bonds [—]
(C)
(i) [R]
(ii) [A]
(iii) [A]
(D)
(
(
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing amendments to certain of its minimum numerical standards for the listing and continued listing of equity securities on the NYSE. On January 29, 2004, the Commission approved these proposed amendments sought by the NYSE on a pilot program basis (the “Pilot Program”).
At the Exchange's request, the Commission approved the Pilot Program on an accelerated basis. The Exchange now believes that there was no opportunity for listed companies to review and comment on the Pilot Program requirements prior to the date compliance was required. The NYSE notes that a number of the listed companies that did not comply with the Pilot Program standards as of the date of approval expressed dismay at the automatic application of the new standards with no public notice.
The Exchange now seeks permanent approval for the Pilot Program currently in effect with respect to the Exchange's original minimum listing standards and approval of the continued minimum listing standards as initially proposed in File No. SR-NYSE-2003-43. The Exchange represents that it maintains an ongoing dialog with knowledgeable practitioners at investment banks, broker-dealers, and venture capital firms, and adjusts its listing standards periodically to ensure that the standards recognize and reflect current market conditions and to allow the Exchange to continue to attract quality companies. The Exchange represents, furthermore, that such changes are proposed only after detailed analysis by Exchange staff of how the proposed standards would affect the NYSE list. The NYSE asserts that the proposed amendments will strengthen certain aspects of the minimum original and continued listing standards, while modestly easing the pre-Pilot “Program Market-Cap/Revenue Test” to enable the NYSE to list somewhat younger companies that still meet substantial quantitative thresholds over their operating history. According to the NYSE, Exchange staff monitored the modest number of companies over the last two years that would have met the “Market-Cap/Revenue Test” as the Exchange proposes to modify it and found that those companies have performed to a standard that would be appropriate for inclusion on the NYSE list.
Prior to the Pilot Program, Section 102.01C of the Listed Company Manual provided that a company must meet one of four specified financial standards in order to qualify to have its equity securities listed. The Exchange is proposing permanent approval of amendments to three of these four standards that have been in effect under the Pilot Program.
Prior to the Pilot Program, Section 102.01C(I) required that a company demonstrate pre-tax earnings of $6.5 million in aggregate for the last three fiscal years, with either a minimum of: (a) $2.5 million in earnings in the most recent fiscal year and $2 million in each of the preceding two years; or (b) $4.5 million in earnings in the most recent fiscal year, with positive earnings in each of the preceding two years. Pursuant to the Pilot Program, the “Earnings Test” requires that companies demonstrate pre-tax earnings of $10 million in aggregate for the last three fiscal years. It also requires that the company demonstrate positive results in all three of the years tested with a minimum of $2.0 million in earnings in each of the preceding two years. The Exchange believes that these changes strengthen the “Earnings Test” standard and also simplify it by eliminating the current two-tiered structure.
Prior to the Pilot Program, Section 102.01C(II) required that a company demonstrate market capitalization of at least $500 million and revenues of at least $100 million over the most recent 12-month period. Provided that these thresholds were met, a company with operating cash flows of at least $25 million in aggregate for the last three fiscal years and positive amounts in each of the three fiscal years would have qualified for listing. Section 102.01C(III) required that an issuer demonstrate (a) market capitalization of at least $1 billion and (b) revenues of at least $100 million in the most recent fiscal year. Because both of these tests are valuation and revenue-based, the Exchange now seeks permanent approval to consolidate them into one test with two alternative subsections. One of the sections of the current Pilot Program, the “Valuation/Revenue Test,” incorporates the pre-Pilot Program requirements of Section 102.01C(II) as the “Valuation/Revenue with Cash Flow Test” with no change to the previous thresholds. The other section incorporates the pre-Pilot Program requirements of Section 102.01C(III) as the “Pure Valuation/Revenue Test.” In addition, the Exchange is proposing to permanently approve the amendments to the thresholds of Section 102.01C(III) that require that companies demonstrate (a) market capitalization of at least $750
The Exchange is also proposing permanent approval of corresponding restructuring changes to Section 103.01B, which sets out minimum numerical standards for non-U.S. issuers. The Exchange is also proposing permanent approval of changes to the numeric thresholds of Section 103.01B(III) in accordance with changes to Section 102.01C(III).
In addition, the Exchange seeks permanent approval of its suspended Pilot Program restructuring and amending the numerical continued listing standards. Section 802.01B of the Listed Company Manual currently applies to companies that fall below any of the following criteria: (i) Average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30-trading-day period is less than $50 million and total stockholders' equity is less than $50 million; or (ii) average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30-trading-day period is less than $15 million; or (iii) for companies that qualified for original listing under the “global market capitalization” standard, (a) average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30-trading-day period is less than $500 million and total revenues are less than $20 million over the last 12 months (unless the resultant entity qualifies as an original listing under one of the other original listing standards), or (b) average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30-trading-day period is less than $100 million.
The Exchange proposes to amend these thresholds and to specifically relate the continued listing standards of Section 802.01B to the original listing standards of Section 102.01C used to qualify a company for listing. Companies that list under the Pilot Program's “Earnings Test” or its predecessor test would be considered to be below compliance if: (a) Average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30-trading-day period is less than $75 million and, at the same time, total stockholders' equity is less than $75 million; or (b) average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30-trading-day period is less than $25 million. These levels have been increased in the proposal to reflect marketplace expectations of those companies deemed suitable for continued listing. These levels are lower than the existing “global market capitalization” standard.
Issuers that list under the Pilot Program's “Valuation/Revenue with Cash Flow Test” or its predecessor test would be considered to be below compliance standards if: (a) Average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30-trading-day period is less than $250 million and, at the same time, total revenues are less than $20 million over the last 12 months (unless the company qualifies as an original listing under one of the other original listing standards);
Issuers that list under the Pilot Program's “Pure Valuation/Revenue Test” or its predecessor test would be considered to be below compliance standards if: (a) Average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30-trading-day period is less than $375 million and, at the same time, total revenues are less than $15 million over the last 12 months (unless the company qualifies as an original listing under one of the other original listing standards); or (b) average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30-trading-day period is less than $100 million.
The Exchange also proposes to clarify that, in circumstances where a listed company's parent or affiliated company no longer controls the listed company or such listed company's parent or affiliated company falls below the continued listing standards applicable to the parent or affiliated company, the continued listing standards applicable to the Pilot Program's “Earnings Test” would apply to companies that originally listed under the Affiliated Company Standard. In addition, the Exchange proposes to increase the continued listing criteria for funds, REITs, and limited partnerships from $15 million to $25 million with a corresponding increase to the notification threshold from $25 million to $35 million.
Companies that fall below the foregoing minimum standards could be permitted a period of time to return to compliance, in accordance with the procedures specified in Sections 802.02 and 802.03 of the Listed Company Manual. As a general matter, companies must reestablish the level of market capitalization (and, if applicable, shareholder's equity) specified in the continued listing standard below which the company fell. However, with respect to the current requirements of Section 802.01B(I) that a company reestablish both its market capitalization and its stockholders' equity to the $50 million level, footnote (C) to Section 802.01B provides several alternatives. Currently, the footnote specifies that, to return to conformity, a company must do one of the following: (a) Reestablish both its market capitalization and its stockholders' equity to the $50 million level; (b) achieve average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30-trading-day period of at least $100 million; or (c) achieve average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30-trading-day period of $60 million, with either (x) stockholders' equity of at least $40 million, or (y) an increase in stockholders' equity of at least $40 million, since the company was notified by the Exchange that it was below continued listing standards. The Exchange proposes to increase these thresholds to require a company to: (a) Reestablish both its market capitalization and its stockholders' equity to the $75 million level; or (b) achieve average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30-trading-day period of at least $150 million; or (c) achieve average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30-trading-day period of $90 million with either (x) stockholders' equity of at least $60 million, or (y) an increase in stockholders' equity of at least $60 million, since the company was notified by the Exchange that it was below continued listing standards.
The Exchange represents that it has considered how to transition the above-described changes to the continued listing standards and intends to provide a period of 30 trading days from the date of any Commission approval of the proposed amendments until such amendments would become effective.
Sections 802.02 and 802.03 of the Listed Company Manual provide that, with respect to a company which is determined to be below continued listing standards a second time within 12 months of successful recovery from previous non-compliance, the Exchange will examine the relationship between the two incidents of falling below continued listing standards and re-evaluate the company's method of financial recovery from the first incident. The Exchange may then take appropriate action, which, depending upon the circumstances, may include truncating the normal procedures for reestablishing conformity with the continued listing standards or
With respect to an issuer currently below the continued listing standards now in force, the Exchange intends to allow it to complete its applicable follow-up procedures and plan for return to compliance as provided in Sections 802.02 and 802.03 of the Listed Company Manual. If, at the end thereof, the issuer is compliant with the continued listing standards about which it was originally notified, but below the increased requirements set forth above, the Exchange would grant it an opportunity to present an additional business plan advising the Exchange of definitive action the issuer has taken, or is taking, that would bring it into conformity with the increased requirements within a further 12 months. In addition, if an issuer were to complete its currently applicable follow-up procedures and plan and were not compliant at that time with the continued listing standards about which it was originally notified, but is above the increased requirements set forth above, the Exchange would consider that issuer to be in conformity with the continued listing standards.
For an issuer that is in compliance with the continued listing standards now in force, but that might be below the continued listing standards proposed herein, the proposed 30-day measurement period prior to effectiveness would allow the Exchange sufficient time to provide early warnings to any issuer that would potentially be below compliance at the end of that period. If, at the end of the 30-trading-day measurement period, an issuer is below the increased requirements set forth above, the Exchange would formally notify the issuer of such non-compliance and provide it with an opportunity to present a business plan within 45 days of that notification advising the Exchange of definitive action the issuer would take to bring it into conformity with the increased requirements within an 18-month period.
Finally, the Exchange is proposing minor technical and conforming changes to Sections 102.02C, 103.01B, 802.01B, and 802.01C of the Listed Company Manual.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change satisfies the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The NYSE does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The NYSE did not solicit or receive written comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change; or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. 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-NYSE-2004-20. 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”),
OCC is seeking approval to clear and settle variance futures and to clear and settle options on variance futures.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to enable OCC to clear and settle futures contracts on the variance over a set time period of a reference variable selected by the futures market proposing to trade the contracts “variance futures” and to clear and settle options on variance futures. A variance is a statistical measure of the variability of price returns relative to an average (mean) price return.
CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC (“CFE”) has proposed to trade variance futures for which the reference variable would be the S&P 500 Index. The underlying variance will be calculated by CFE (or its agent) using a standard formula that uses continuously compounded daily returns on the reference variable for a specified time period. The calculated variance will then be annualized assuming 252 business days per year. CFE currently proposes futures on the one month variance and three month variance of the S&P 500 Index although CFE may list variance futures on other variance measurement periods for the S&P 500 Index or on other reference variables in the future. The variance measurement period for each series of variance futures traded on CFE will begin on the first business day following the maturity date of the previously maturing series and continue to (and include) the maturity date of the subject series. CFE may open trading in a series of variance futures prior to the beginning of the measurement period for the underlying variance. For example, CFE may open a future contract on the one month variance of the S&P 500 Index four months before its maturity date where the measurement period for the variance underlying that variance future would be the one month prior to the maturity date of the future.
Futures on variance differ from futures on volatility indexes currently traded on CFE and cleared and settled by OCC in that underlying variance is calculated using only historical daily closing values of the reference variable while an underlying volatility index represents the implied volatility component of bid and ask premium quotations for options on a reference variable.
OCC believes that an underlying variance is a “commodity” within the definition of Section 1a(4) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”), which defines “commodity” to include “all * * * rights, and interests in which contracts for future delivery are presently or in the future dealt in.” OCC believes a variance as proposed to be traded by CFE is clearly neither a “security” as defined in Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) nor a “narrow-based security index” as defined in Section 3(a)(55)(B) of the Act. Accordingly, OCC believes a futures contract on such a variance would not be a “security future” within the meaning of Section 3(a)(55)(A) of the Act and therefore would be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. OCC therefore proposes to clear this product in its capacity as a “derivatives clearing organization” registered under Section 5b of the CEA.
In order to provide for the clearance of variance futures, OCC proposes to add four new defined terms to Article I of its By-Laws. The more general term “multiplier” would be added to encompass the already defined term “index multiplier” as well as the multiplier that would be applied to a variance future to determine the final settlement price. Adding the multiplier definition would simplify other amendments to the By-Laws and Rules as described below. The term “reference variable” will be defined to mean the price or value of a security, commodity, future, currency, asset, index, or other thing, the variance or other measure of variability of which is used as the underlying interest for a cleared contract. The term would be needed to describe contracts, such as variance futures, that have as their underlying a measure of the variability of the price or level of an index or instrument. “Underlying variance” or “variance” would be defined as the variability of the reference variable over a specified time period as measured by the futures market on which the variance future is traded or that market's designated reporting authority. A “variance future” would be defined as a future on a variance.
Article VI, Section 10(d) of the By-Laws currently provides that the index multiplier for an index future is set by a market at the time a series is opened and may be adjusted under Article XII, Sections 3 and 4. The rule change would make Section 10(d) applicable to variance futures by replacing the term “index multiplier” with the new term “multiplier” and by specifically referring to variance futures as well as index futures. Likewise, Article XII, Sections 3 and 4 (relating to adjustments) and Section 5, “Unavailability or Inaccuracy of Final Settlement Price,” are made applicable to variance futures and options on such futures. In order to determine the variance of a variance future that has a stock index as its reference variable, the level of the stock index must be accurate and available. Therefore, OCC would require similar authority to adjust variance futures for changes in the index that is the reference variable or the unavailability of such index, as OCC has in the case of indexes underlying index futures. Additionally, a new
Variance futures are non-equity futures and as such would be margined under Chapter VI, Rule 602.
The “Introduction” to Chapter XIII will be amended to include variance futures among those futures contracts that OCC is approved to clear and settle. Rule 1301(a) will be, like Article VI, Section 10(d), made applicable to variance futures by simply replacing “index multiplier” with “multiplier” and by adding references to variance futures where index futures are referenced.
OCC and CFC will be entering into First Amendment to Agreement for Clearing and Settling Security Futures and Futures and Futures Options on Broad-Based Indexes. The Amendment will make several changes to the Clearing Agreement in anticipation of the clearance of variance futures. Only certain of those changes will be substantive. Section 3(b) of the Clearing Agreement currently identifies the permissible underlying interests for futures contracts that CFE may clear though OCC. Section 5 of the Amendment will amend Section 3(b) to permit the parties to agree on additional underlying interests by completion and execution of a schedule in the form that will be attached to the Amendment as Schedule C. The parties have also agreed upon and will include with the Amendment a Schedule C-1 for variance futures. Section 10 of the Amendment will amend Section 3(e) to extend the established procedure for selecting underlying interests to an underlying interest listed on a Schedule C.
Section 3(c)(i) of the Clearing Agreement currently states that broad-based index futures are the only acceptable underlying interest for options to be cleared under the Clearing Agreement. Section 6 of the Amendment would change this language so that any future other than a security future may be an underlying interest for such an option.
The Clearing Agreement currently requires CFE to indemnify OCC in certain circumstances. Section 11 of the Amendment would add a provision clarifying, among other things, the applicability of the indemnification provisions to certain currently pending litigation against CBOE and CFE and to similar litigation or claims that may be brought in the future. Section 11 of the Amendment would also make CBOE a party to the Clearing Agreement for the purpose of assuming joint and several liability with OCC in the event that OCC is entitled to indemnification with respect to such litigation or claims.
The proposed changes to OCC's By-Laws and Rules and the Amendment to the Clearing Agreement are consistent with the purposes and requirements of Section 17A of the Act
Variance futures are commodity futures within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC, and OCC will therefore clear variance futures in its capacity as a registered derivatives clearing organization under the CFTC's regulatory jurisdiction. Accordingly, although this rule change represents a change in OCC's existing service of clearing commodity futures contracts, that service is not otherwise within the jurisdiction of the Commission. This rule change will not affect the safeguarding of funds or securities in OCC's possession because OCC will apply procedures and safeguards to the clearing of these contracts that are similar to those it applies to the clearing of securities options and security futures over which the Commission has direct regulatory authority. The respective rights and obligations of OCC and its clearing members with respect to matters within the Commission's jurisdiction will be unaffected.
OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition.
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
• Use the Commission's on-line comment form (
• Send an e-mail message 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 No. SR-OCC-2004-08. 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”)
OCC is seeking to amend its rules to reduce the threshold amounts applied to equity options for purposes of exercise by exception processing on expiration.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend OCC's Rule 805, “Expiration Date Exercise Procedure,” which describes its expiration date exercise procedures including exercise by exception processing. Specifically, OCC proposes to reduce the threshold amounts used to determine equity options that are in the money for purposes of exercise by exception processing.
OCC has for years maintained an “exercise by exception” procedure. Under that procedure, options that are in the money at expiration by more than a specified threshold amount are exercised automatically unless the clearing member carrying the position instructs otherwise. Equity options are determined to be in the money or not based on the difference between the exercise price and the closing price of the underlying equity interest on the last trading day before expiration. The current threshold for equity options is $.75 in a clearing member's customers' account and $.25 in any other account (
OCC's Roundtable has proposed that the threshold amounts for equity options be reduced to $.25 for customers' accounts and $.15 in all other accounts.
In response to the Roundtable's proposal, OCC analyzed equity options exercise information from the November 2003, December 2003, and January 2004 expirations. OCC's analysis determined that clearing members exercised 93% to 97% of equity option contracts carried in their customers' accounts that were in the money by $.25 to $.74 (
OCC also surveyed all clearing members to obtain their views and comments on the proposed change. Survey results demonstrated strong support across the membership for the change. Of 116 clearing members, 105 responded to the survey with 96 clearing members in favor of the threshold change.
OCC contacted each firm that opposed the threshold change. These firms expressed a concern about having to input more “do not exercise” instructions. All of these firms agreed that they could adapt to the change if supported by the majority of clearing members. OCC reviewed the positions carried by these firms and determined that, on average, they carry position in fewer than ten expiring series that are below the current threshold of $.75. This review led OCC to conclude that the threshold change would result in only a slight increase in processing time for these firms and that they would not be unduly burdened by its implementation.
The clearing member survey also asked firms to provide an estimate of the time needed to accommodate the threshold change based upon supplied timeframes.
The Roundtable has requested of OCC that this change be implemented for the September 2004 expiration. OCC therefore requests that the Commission approve this rule filing by September 1, 2004, and authorize OCC to implement the threshold change thereafter based upon its assessment of clearing member readiness. If OCC determines that clearing members need additional time to complete preparations for the threshold change, OCC will implement the threshold change in accordance with such time needed. OCC anticipates implementation no later than for the October 2004 expiration. OCC will provide at least ten days' advanced notice to clearing members of the effective date for the new threshold amounts. Such notice will be provided through information memoranda and other forms of electronic notice such as e-mail.
OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition.
As referenced in Item II(A), written comments were received in connection with the clearing member survey conducted by OCC. No other written comments were received, and no other written comments are intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.
Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change 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-OCC-2004-04. 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.
Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 [79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459], Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 [112 Stat. 2681,
For further information or a list of exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, (202) 619-5997, and the address is United States Department of State, SA-44, Room 700, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547-0001.
Aviation Proceedings, Agreements filed the week ending June 11, 2004, but excluded in the report published at 69 FR 35122. The following Agreement was filed with the Department of Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 412 and 414. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application.
Department of Transportation.
Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2004-6-22).
The Department of Transportation is directing all interested persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding that Homer Air, Inc., is fit, willing, and able, to engage in interstate scheduled air transportation of persons, property and mail under 49 U.S.C 41102.
Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than July 9, 2004.
Objections and answers to objections should be filed in Docket OST-01-9181 and addressed to Department of Transportation Dockets (M-30, Room PL-401), 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order.
Patricia L. Thomas, Chief, Air Carrier Fitness Division (X-56, Room 6401), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-9721.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of availability of proposed advisory circular (AC) and request for comments.
This notice announces the availability of and requests comments on a proposed advisory circular, AC 23.1523. This guidance sets forth one method that may be used to show compliance with the requirements contained in 14 CFR, part 23 and § 23.1523, which prescribes certification requirements for minimum flight crew. Most part 23 airplanes are certified for single pilot operations, therefore, the major focus of this guidance is to address cockpit workload considerations that are described in this rule. We are proposing that this guidance be used to improve cockpit safety by addressing pilot workload which has been impacted through the development on newer and novel technologies available in general aviation cockpits along with increased complexity of operations. This AC is one method that can be utilized to determine workload factors and issues for normal, utility, aerobatic and commuter category airplanes. Material in this AC is neither mandatory nor regulatory in nature and does not constitute a regulation. This material is intended to be a ready reference for part 23 airplane manufacturers, modifiers, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design evaluation engineers, flight test engineers, engineering flight test pilots [Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), Flight Standards, and Manufacturers] as well as human factors engineering evaluators. This material may also be used by FAA authorized designees in the performance of workload evaluations.
Comments must be received on or before August 31, 2004.
Copies of the proposed Minimum Flight Crew, AC 23.1523, may be requested from the following: Small Airplane Directorate, Standards Office (ACE-110), Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust Street, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106. Proposed advisory circulars are posted on the RGL at
Mr. Frank Bick, Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, telephone (816) 329-4119, fax (816) 329-4090,
Any person may obtain a copy of this proposed AC by contacting the person named above under
Additionally, the lack of standardization in the design and operation of these systems can negatively affect pilot training and impact performance and safety. Accordingly, there is a need to more closely examine pilot workload and error potential in these highly complex, integrated cockpits.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its determination that the noise exposure maps submitted by City of Santa Barbara, California for Santa Barbara Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501
Jennifer Mendelsohn, Environmental Protection Specialist, AWP-621.6, Southern California Standards Section, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, California 90009-2007, Telephone: 310/725-3637.
This notice announces that the FAA finds that the noise exposure maps submitted for Santa Barbara Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements of Part 150, effective June 28, 2004. Under 49 U.S.C. 47503 of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), an airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps which meet applicable regulations and which depict non-compatible land uses as of the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties in the local community, government agencies, and persons using the airport. An airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, promulgated pursuant to the Act, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes to take to reduce existing non-compatible uses and prevent the introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure maps and accompanying documentation submitted by City of Santa Barbara, California. The documentation that constitutes the “Noise Exposure Maps” as defined in section 150.7 of Part 150 includes: Exhibit 3M “2003 Noise Exposure Map,” and Exhibit 3P “2008 Noise Exposure Map.” The Noise Exposure Maps contain current and forecast information including the depiction of the airport and its boundaries, the runway configurations, land uses such as residential, open space, commercial/office, community facilities, libraries, churches, open space, infrastructure, vacant and warehouse and those areas within the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) 60, 65, 70 and 75 noise contours. Estimates for the number of people within these contours for the year 2003 are shown in Table 4D. Estimates of the future residential population within the 2008 noise contours are shown in Table 4G. Exhibit 3A displays the location of noise monitoring sites. Flight tracks for the existing and the five-year forecast Noise Exposure Maps are found in Exhibits 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H, 3J, and 3K. The type and frequency of aircraft operations (including nighttime operations) are found in Tables 3D and 3E. The FAA has determined that these noise exposure maps and accompanying documentation are in compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is effective on June 28, 2004.
FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with the procedures contained in Appendix A of FAR Part 150. Such determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information or plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility program or to fund the implementation of that program. If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted under section 47503 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the noise exposure maps
Copies of the full noise exposure map documentation and of the FAA's evaluation of the maps are available for examination at the following locations: Federal Aviation Administration, Community and Environmental Needs Division, APP-600, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region, Airports Division, Room 3012, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Hawthorne, California 90261. Karen Ramsdell, Airport Director, Santa Barbara Airport, 601 Firestone Road, Goleta, California 93117.
Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Revision to Notice to hold one (1) public scoping meeting and one (1) governmental and public agency scoping meeting.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is issuing this revised notice to advise the public of a change in the date and location of governmental and public scoping meetings. A joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report will be prepared for development recommended by the Master Plan for Ontario International Airport, Ontario, California. To ensure that all significant issues related to the proposed action are identified, one (1) public scoping meeting and one (1) governmental and public agency scoping meeting will be held.
Jennifer Mendelsohn, Environmental Protection Specialist, AWP-621.6, Southern California Standards Section, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, California 90009-2007, Telephone: 310/725-3637. Comments on the scope of the EIS/EIR should be submitted to the address above and must be received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, on Monday, September 13, 2004.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published this Notice of Intent on June 9, 2004. This revised notice is to advise the public of a change in the date and location of the governmental and public scoping meetings. The FAA in cooperation with the city of Los Angeles, California, will prepare a joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for future development recommended by the Master Plan for Ontario International Airport (ONT). The need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is based on the procedures described in FAA Order 5050.4A, Airport Environmental Handbook.
ONT is a commercial service airport located within a standard metropolitan statistical area and the proposed airside development includes relocation of the runways, separation of the runways, extension of a runway and construction and/or relocation of taxiway(s). The proposed landside improvements include additional terminals, additional gates, construction and/or expansion of parking lots, construction and/or expansion of access roads, construction, expansion and/or relocation of the existing surface transportation center, construction, expansion and/or relocation of the general aviation facilities, construction, expansion and/or relocation of airport maintenance area, construction, expansion and/or relocation of an airport administration facility, construction, expansion and/or relocation of aircraft safety facility (aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) facility). The proposed project also may include an airport people mover (APM). The area around the airport contains non-compatible land uses in terms of aircraft noise; and the proposed development is likely to be controversial.
Significant growth in the demand for air travel through 2030 is expected in the ONT service area. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) predicts a doubling of regional passenger demand by 2030 and predicts that air cargo demand will more than triple. The RTP proposes to accommodate this growth at outlying airports rather than expansion of Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The proposed LAX Master Plan supports this concept and plans to modernize facilities but to maintain the airport capacity at about 78 Million Annual Passengers (MAP). Other airports in the region also are constrained from growth, generally by either the limitations of their facilities or by court settlements that restrict growth to control environmental impacts to surrounding residents. The RTP relies on the Ontario International Airport to accommodate a larger share of the total regional passenger and air cargo demand in the future than it currently accommodates (6 to 6.5 million passengers used ONT in 2003) to serve this growing regional demand. The ONT Master Plan development alternatives, therefore, propose airport improvements that can accommodate passenger growth to 30 Million Annual Passengers or the estimated capacity of the two existing dependent runways.
The city of Los Angeles, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) also will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed development. In an effort to eliminate unnecessary duplication and reduce delay, the document to be prepared, will be a joint EIS/EIR in accordance with the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations described in 40 Code of Federal Regulations sections 1500.5 and 1506.2.
The Joint Lead Agencies for the preparation of the EIS/EIR will be the Federal Aviation Administration and the city of Los Angeles, California.
The following master planning development alternatives and the No Action/No Project Alternative are proposed to be evaluated in the EIS/EIR as described below:
Comments and suggestions are invited from Federal, State and local agencies, and other interested parties to ensure that the full range of issues related to these proposed projects are addressed and all significant issues are identified. Written comments and suggestions concerning the scope of the EIS/EIR may be mailed to the FAA informational contact listed above and must be received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, on Monday, September 13, 2004.
The FAA and LAWA will jointly hold one (1) public and one (1) governmental agency scoping meeting to solicit input from the public and various Federal, State and local agencies that have jurisdiction by law or have specific expertise with respect to any environmental impacts associated with the proposed projects. A scoping meeting specifically for governmental and public agencies will now be held on Tuesday, August 17, 2004, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., Pacific Daylight Time at the Ontario Convention Center, 2000 Convention Center Way, Ontario, California 91764 (enter public parking lot off Holt Avenue). The public scoping meeting will be held at the same location on Tuesday, August 17, 2004, from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of dispositions of prior petitions.
Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption part 11 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains the dispositions of certain petitions previously received. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition.
John Linsenmeyer, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Tel. (202) 267-5174.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition exemption received.
Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption, part 11 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains a summary of a certain petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition.
Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before July 22, 2004.
Send comments on the petition to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2004-17629 at the beginning of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation that the FAA received your comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard.
You may also submit comments through the Internet to
Annette Kovite (425-227-1262), Transport Airplane Directorate (ANM-113), Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Ave SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056; or John Linsenmeyer (202-267-5174), Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption, part 11 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains a summary of a certain petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition.
Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before July 22, 2004.
You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FAA-2003-15183 by any of the following methods:
• Web Site:
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
•
•
•
•
John Linsenmeyer (202) 267-5174, Tim Adams (202) 267-8033, or Sandy Buchanan-Sumter (202) 267-7271, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application,
Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before July 22, 2004.
Send comments on the petition to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2004-17235-1 at the beginning of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation that the FAA received your comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard.
You may also submit comments through the Internet to
Les Taylor ((816) 329-4134), Small Airplane Directorate (ACE-111), Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; or John Linsenmeyer (202) 267-5174, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-207), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91.
Federal Aviation Administration (DOT).
Notice of availability and request for public comment.
This notice announces the availability of and requests comments on a proposed revision to Technical Standard Order (TSO) C-26c, Aircraft Wheels and Wheel-Brake Assemblies, with Addendum I, to TSO-C26d, Aircraft Wheels, Brakes and Wheel/Brakes Assemblies for Part 23, 27, and 29 Aircraft. This proposed revision tells persons seeking a TSO authorization or letter of design approval what minimum performance standards (MPS) their aircraft wheels, brakes, and wheel/brake assemblies for Part 23, 27, and 29 aircraft must meet to be identified with the applicable TSO marking.
Comments must be received on or before August 2, 204.
Send all comments on the proposed technical standard order to: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Aircraft Certification Service, Aircraft Engineering Division, Technical Programs and Continued Airworthiness Branch, AIR-120, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Mr. George Soteropoulos. Or deliver comments to: Federal Aviation Administration, Room 815, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
Mr. George Soteropoulos, AIR-120, Room 815, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Aircraft Engineering Division, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Telephone (202) 267-9796, FAX: (202) 202-5340. Or, via e-mail at:
Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed TSO listed in this notice by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they desire to the above specified address. Comments received on the proposed revision may be examined, before and after the comment closing date, in Room 815, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, weekdays except Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. All communications received on or before the closing date will be considered by the Director of the Aircraft Certification Service before issuing the final TSO.
Current TSO-C26c, Aircraft Wheels and Wheel-Brake Assemblies, with Addendum I, dated 5/18/84, prescribes the MPS that Part 23, 25, 27, and 29 aircraft wheels and wheel-brake assemblies must meet to be identified with the applicable TSO marking TSO-C135, Transport Airplane Wheels and Wheel and Brake Assemblies, issued on 5/2/02, prescribes the MPS for Part 25 airplanes as of that date. This proposed revision to TSO-C26c prescribes the MPS for Parts 23, 27, and 29 for new applications, and major design changes to aircraft wheels, brakes and wheel/brake assemblies, submitted after the effective date of this proposed TSO-C26d. This proposed revision also reflects the latest industry practices.
You may get a copy of the proposed TSO-C26d from the Internet at
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. We published a
Please submit comments by August 2, 2004.
You may send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: DOT Desk Officer. You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burdens; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burdens could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information.
Ms. Ann Shemaka, (202) 366-1575, Office of Infrastructure, Office of Bridge Technology, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is issuing this notice to advise interested agencies and the public that, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, FTA and the Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for proposed transportation improvements in the Southeast Corridor between downtown Nashville in Davidson County, Tennessee and Murfreesboro in Rutherford County, Tennessee.
All scoping meetings will be held in wheelchair-accessible locations. If additional assistance, such as signing for the hearing impaired, is needed, please notify Jim McAteer of the Nashville Area MPO as indicated below under
Written comments on the scope of the EIS, including the alternatives to be analyzed and the impacts to be considered, should be sent by August 14, 2004 to: Jim McAteer, Transit Planner, Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, 730 2nd Ave South, Nashville, TN 37201, Phone (615) 862-7204, Fax (615) 862-7209, e-mail
Mr. Doug Frate, Federal Transit Administration, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Suite 17T50, Atlanta, GA 30303. Phone: (404) 562-3514.
FTA, the Federal lead agency, in cooperation with the Nashville Area MPO, the local
The Nashville Area MPO and FTA invite interested individuals, organizations, and Federal, State, and local agencies to participate in scoping the EIS. Scoping participants are invited to comment on the alternatives to be addressed; the modes and technologies to be evaluated; the alignments and station locations to be considered; the environmental, social, and economic impacts to be analyzed; and the evaluation approach to be used to select a locally preferred alternative. Interested individuals, organizations, or agencies may propose the consideration of an additional, specific alternative or the study of a specific environmental effect associated with an alternative. Scoping comments should focus on the issues and alternatives for analysis, and not on preference for particular alternatives. (Individual preference for particular alternatives should be communicated during the comment period for the Draft EIS.) Comments may be made at the scoping meetings or in writing no later than August 14, 2004, as described in
The study area, known as the Southeast Corridor, links the cities of Nashville in Davidson County and LaVergne, Smyrna and Murfreesboro in Rutherford County, all of which are within the MPO's area of responsibility for transportation planning. Nashville is the second largest city in Tennessee with a population of roughly 570,000. The central business district houses the Tennessee State Offices, music attractions, and the Tennessee Titans football team which brings visitors from across the state. Nashville draws approximately 132,000 commuters from surrounding counties, about 25,000 of whom come from Rutherford County. Murfreesboro is the southernmost terminus of the study corridor and lies about 30 miles southeast of Nashville. It has a population of roughly 75,000 and is home to Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU), which has an enrollment of about 21,000, of whom 3,500 live on the campus. Smyrna has a population of approximately 25,600 and LaVergne has an approximate population of 18,700. The estimated population along the corridor is 260,050.
The two primary north-south thoroughfares within the corridor are Murfreesboro Road, also known as U.S. 41/70S, and Interstate 24 (I-24). This corridor experiences significant levels of traffic congestion within the 30-mile segment of I-24 between Nashville and Murfreesboro, handling between 91,000 and 133,000 average daily annual trips. Murfreesboro Road has between 20,600 and 37,400 average annual daily trips. Some of the potential trip attractors/generators along the corridor include Nashville International Airport, and MTSU and major employers such as Dell Computer and regional shopping malls, commercial services, office parks, hospitals and the downtown core of Nashville. LaVergne and Smyrna form a major employment area known as “Interchange City,” which is home to a Nissan manufacturing plant, Bridgestone and other major industries.
Few options exist in the corridor to provide alternatives to driving in heavily congested conditions. Improvements are needed to address traffic volumes that increase annually and the corresponding traffic congestion that is projected to occur. The planning Alternatives Analysis will examine alignments, technologies, station locations, cost, funding, ridership, economic development, land use, engineering feasibility, and environmental concerns. During this Alternatives Analysis process, the MPO will also evaluate options for transportation improvements in this corridor that do not involve significant capital investment.
The alternatives initially proposed for consideration in the Southeast Corridor include:
1. No Action Alternative: Based on projects included in the local transportation improvement plan (TIP) and financially-constrained long-range transportation plan, with no new change to transportation services or facilities in the area beyond already committed projects.
2. Transportation System Management Alternative: A low-cost alternative will be developed to include minor improvements to intersections, traffic signals, demand management and system management programs, bus services and facilities and other modifications to the transportation system that can be made without major investments in infrastructure or equipment.
3. Build Alternatives: Three alternatives, combining various types of major investments to meet the travel needs of the corridor, will be developed. These “build” alternatives most likely will include the development of busway or bus rapid transit, light rail transit, and conventional commuter rail technology along various existing rights-of-way in the corridor.
Based on public and agency input received during scoping, variations of the above alternatives and other transportation-related improvement options, both transit and non-transit, will be considered for the Southeast Corridor.
The FTA and MPO will consider all social, economic, and environmental impacts associated with the alternatives under consideration. Potential environmental issues to be addressed include: land use, historic and archaeological resources, traffic and parking, noise and vibration, environmental justice, floodplain encroachments, coordination with other transportation and economic development projects, and construction impacts. Other issues to be addressed include: natural areas, ecosystems, rare and endangered species, water resources, air quality, surface water and groundwater quality, contaminated sites, displacements and relocations, and parklands. The potential impacts will be evaluated for both the construction period and the long-term operations period of each alternative considered. In addition, the cumulative effects of the alternatives on major resources identified in the study area will be analyzed. Measures to avoid or mitigate any significant adverse impacts will be developed.
In accordance with FTA policy, all Federal laws, regulations, and executive orders affecting project development, including but not limited to the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality and FTA implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and 23 CFR part 771), the Clean Air Act, section 404 of the Clean
After the scoping process, the MPO will conduct a planning Alternatives Analysis to decide what transportation improvements in the Southeast Corridor should be incorporated into its regional transportation plan. The planning Alternatives Analysis will examine alignments, technologies, station locations, cost, funding, ridership, economic development, land use, engineering feasibility, and environmental concerns. The Draft EIS will incorporate the planning Alternatives Analysis by reference and evaluate the surviving alternatives in detail. After its publication, the Draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment, and public hearings will be held on the Draft EIS. The Final EIS will consider comments received during the Draft EIS public review and will identify the preferred alternative. Additional opportunities for public involvement will be provided throughout all phases of project development.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of public hearing.
The Surface Transportation Board will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, at its offices in Washington, DC, to provide interested persons an opportunity to express their views on the subject of Board processing of rail rate challenges that are not suitable for handling under the Board's constrained market pricing procedures. Persons wishing to speak at the hearing should notify the Board in writing.
The public hearing will take place on Wednesday, July 21, 2004. Any person wishing to speak at the hearing should file with the Board a written notice of intent to participate, and should indicate a requested time allotment, as soon as possible but no later than July 9, 2004. Each speaker should also file with the Board his/her written testimony by July 16, 2004.
All notices of intent to participate and testimony may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should comply with the instructions found on the Board's
Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 565-1609. (Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at: (800) 877-8339.)
The Board will hold a public hearing to provide a forum for the expression of views by rail shippers, railroads, and other interested persons, regarding rail rate challenges in small cases to be considered by the Board. This hearing will provide a forum for the oral discussion of any proposals that interested persons might wish to offer for handling small cases involving a challenge to the reasonableness of rates charged by a rail carrier. The Board is also interested in participants' views on how “small rate cases” should be defined or identified.
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart F—
BNSF has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead traffic to be rerouted; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to applicant's representative: Michael Smith, Freeborn & Peters, 311 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3000, Chicago, IL 60606-6677.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
BNSF has filed an environmental report which addresses the abandonment's effects, if any, on the environment or historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by July 9, 2004. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEA (Room 500, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling SEA, at (202) 565-1539. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339]. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), BNSF shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by BNSF's filing of a notice of consummation by July 2, 2005, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
On June 14, 2004, the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) filed with the Surface Transportation Board a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to abandon a 1.60-mile line of railroad extending from milepost 0.00 to milepost 1.60 in and near Brainerd, in Crow Wing County, MN. The line traverses United States Postal Service ZIP Code 56401.
The line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in BNSF's possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it.
The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in
By issuing this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by October 1, 2004.
Any offer of financial assistance (OFA) will be due no later than 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption.
All interested persons should be aware that, following abandonment of rail service and salvage of the line, the line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be due no later than July 22, 2004. Each trail use request must be accompanied by a $200 filing fee.
All filings in response to this notice must refer to STB Docket No. AB-6 (Sub-No. 421X) and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001; and (2) Michael Smith, 311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000, Chicago, IL 60606-6677. Replies to the BNSF petition are due on or before July 22, 2004.
Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Services at (202) 565-1592 or refer to the full abandonment or discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) at (202) 565-1539. (Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.)
An environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary), prepared by SEA, will be served upon all parties of record and upon any agencies or other persons who commented during its preparation. Other interested persons may contact SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in these abandonment proceedings normally will be made available within 60 days after the filing of the petition. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA will generally be within 30 days of its service.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Director, Office of Proceedings.
Butler County, Kansas (County) has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1152 subpart F-
The County has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) there has been no overhead traffic on the line during the past 2 years; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a State or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Board or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
Where, as here, the carrier is abandoning its entire line, the Board does not normally impose labor protection under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), unless the evidence indicates the existence of: (1) A corporate affiliate that will continue substantially similar rail operations; or (2) a corporate parent that will realize substantial financial benefits over and above relief from the burden of deficit operations by its subsidiary railroad.
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on August 4, 2004, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to the County's representative: Karl Morell, Ball Janik LLP, 1455 F Street, NW., Suite 225, Washington, DC 20005.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
The County has filed an environmental report which addresses the abandonment's effects, if any, on the environment and historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by July 9, 2004. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEA (Room 500, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling SEA, at (202) 565-1539. (Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.) Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), the County shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by the County's filing of a notice of consummation by July 2, 2005, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
This is Supplement No. 16 to the Treasury Department Circular 570; 2003 Revision, published July 1, 2003 at 68 FR 39186.
Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.
Notice is hereby given that the Certificate of Authority issued by the Treasury to the above named Company, under the United States Code, Title 31, section 9304-9308, to qualify as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds is terminated effective today.
The Company was last listed as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds at 68 FR 39216, July 1, 2003.
With respect to any bonds currently in force with the above listed Company, bond-approving officers may let such bonds run to expiration and need not secure new bonds. However, no new bonds should be accepted from the Company. In addition, bonds that are continuous in nature should not be renewed.
The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at
Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6507, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
This is Supplement No. 17 of the Treasury Department Circular 570; 2003 Revision, published July 1, 2003, at 68 FR 39186.
Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6779.
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of Illinois has formally changed its name to Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America and has redomesticated from the state of Illinois to the state of Connecticut, effective January 1, 2004. The Company was last listed as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds at 68 FR 39222, July 1, 2003.
Federal bond-approving officers should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570, 2003 revision, on page 39222 to reflect this change.
The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at
Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Funds Management Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6F07, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
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, Pub. L. 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 13094, Recommendation for Juvenile Employment with the Internal Revenue Service.
Written comments should be received on or before August 31, 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 form 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.
In rule document 04-13873 beginning on page 34262 in the issue of Monday, June 21, 2004, make the following correction:
On page 34271, in §35.110, in the third column, in the first full paragraph, in the fifth and sixth lines, remove the duplicated text “
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the availability of documents that were developed as part of EPA's process for making pesticide reregistration eligibility decisions 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 documents are the human health and environmental risk assessments and related documents for thiram. This notice also starts a 60-day public comment period during which the public is encouraged to submit comments on EPA's preliminary assessment of benefits of thiram and risk management ideas or proposals for thiram. This action is in response to a joint initiative between EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to increase transparency in the tolerance reassessment process for all pesticides. Comments are to be limited to issues directly associated with thiram and its benefits raised by the risk assessments, potential risk reduction options, or other documents placed in the docket. By allowing access and opportunity for comment on the risk assessments and potential risk reduction options, EPA is seeking to strengthen stakeholder involvement and help ensure that our decisions under FQPA are transparent and based on the best available information.
Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP-2004-0183, must be received on or before August 31, 2004.
Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
Craig Doty, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-0122; fax number: (703) 308-8041; e-mail address:
This action is directed to the public in general but may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders, including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the agrochemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in pesticide use on food. This list 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. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to you or 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.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
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 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 ID number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
EPA has revised the preliminary assessments of the risks of thiram and identified areas of concern that may require risk mitigation measures. The Agency's dietary, worker, and ecological risk estimates for thiram indicate risks of concern. The Agency's dietary risk estimate indicates acute risk of concern for the general U.S. population and all population subgroups as a result of foliar treatments of apples, peaches, and strawberries. EPA's potential risk mitigation measures for foliar treatments may focus on the apple and strawberry uses because thiram's main foliar uses are on these crops.
For ecological effects, Agency estimates of exposure resulting from thiram's foliar usage and turf applications on sod farms, golf courses, parks, and athletic fields, indicate acute risk to freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, reproductive risk to birds, and indirect effects to mammals. These risk estimates also apply to endangered species. Agency estimates of exposure strongly suggest that thiram-treated seed may pose a risk of causing reproductive impairments to wild bird species. EPA received additional information submitted during the Phase 3 comment period pertaining to thiram's use on seed and impact to avian species, but has not completed the review of the data. This additional data may be used to further refine the risk estimates to birds from thiram-treated seed.
Further, worker risks of concern include some loading scenarios for aerial granular application, some handheld equipment use, and a few commercial and on-farm seed treatment scenarios.
EPA has compiled information on thiram's uses and usages, which will be used in conjunction with comments received during the Phase 3 public comment period to perform a benefits analysis. EPA's preliminary findings show several other useful protectant fungicides are available for foliar use based on a review of the USDA Crop Profiles for California, Oregon, and Washington apples, and California and Florida strawberries, and communications with several state crop specialists on the relative importance of thiram in these states.
Thiram's importance for uses on non-residential turf on sod farms and golf courses appears to be relatively low. Thiram's use on golf courses may be less than 0.1% of total golf course acres treated. Thiram's use on sod farms appears to be negligible and may be less than 1% of acres treated.
Thiram's importance for use on seed seems relatively high. Up to 631,000 pounds of thiram (active ingredient) per year are used to treat about 1.3 billion pounds of seed. About 24 million acres are planted with thiram-treated seed. The five crops reflecting the distribution of the acres planted with seed treated with thiram in order of total acres planted are: Cotton, wheat, barley, oats, and sugar beets. These five crops comprise a total of greater than 98% of all acres planted with thiram-treated seed.
EPA has identified some possible preliminary risk reduction options for thiram. The Agency is awaiting additional data on thiram that could be used to refine the acute dietary risk assessment; however, based on the current assessment, eliminating the uses on both strawberries and apples would bring the dietary risk below the Agency's level of concern. This option would also reduce the worker and ecological risks posed by the foliar usage of thiram.
To address the ecological risks posed by thiram's usage on turf, an option would be to limit the use of thiram to golf course tees and greens. In relation to addressing these risk concerns, the technical registrant has submitted a voluntary letter of cancellation that eliminates the uses of thiram for turf applications to parks, athletic fields, and commercial landscapes; and all homeowner and retail uses as for animal repellency on residential lawns or turf, turf being grown for sale or other commercial use such as sod.
To address the risk concerns for workers, an option would be to add additional levels of personal protection (e.g., the use of a respirator) or to eliminate certain application methods (e.g., high pressure handwand), or use sites (e.g., on-farm seed treatment). In relation to addressing these risk concerns, the technical registrant has submitted a voluntary letter of cancellation that eliminates the on-farm seed treatment of peanuts.
EPA is investigating additional risk reduction options to mitigate ecological risks of concern posed by the seed treatment uses of thiram. Commenters are encouraged to discuss the feasibility of restricting the broadcasting of treated seed and means to ensure that spillage from drilled seeding applications is removed from the field or buried, as has been required by the European Union. Alternatively, restrictions could be placed on which types of seed are treated, the areas of the country where thiram-treated seed could be planted, and/or the time of year it is planted. The Agency encourages stakeholders to submit risk management proposals.
EPA has identified the areas of risk posed by thiram as it is currently labeled and seeks stakeholder input on how thiram use and usages can be modified to reduce these risks. EPA encourages stakeholder input on the following items to assist in developing a risk mitigation plan:
1. Describe how you use thiram during your production cycles. What production changes would you make if thiram were not available including alternative fungicides? What specific pests are being targeted?
2. How effective are the alternatives to thiram? What are the differences in costs associated with the use of thiram alternatives? What impact, if any, do you observe to quality or yield?
3. What is the maximum application rate that you use and how often do you use it?
4. How important is thiram for the foliar, turf, and seed treatment uses?
5. How can the Agency reduce ecological risks posed by thiram-treated seed?
6. How can the Agency reduce occupational risks posed by thiram (e.g., sewing bags of commercially treated seed or applying thiram with high pressure handwand)?
EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice, for interested parties to provide written comments and input to the Agency on the risk assessments and preliminary risk reduction options for thiram. These documents have been developed as part of the public participation process that EPA and USDA are using to involve the public in the reassessment of pesticide tolerances under FQPA, and the reregistration of individual pesticides under FIFRA. A goal of the public participation process has been to find a more effective way for the public to participate at critical junctures in the Agency's development of pesticide risk assessments and risk management decisions. EPA and USDA began implementing this pilot process in August 1998, to increase transparency and opportunities for stakeholder consultation. The documents being released to the public through this notice provide information on the revisions that were made to the thiram preliminary risk assessments, which were released to the public on January 26, 2004 (69 FR 3581) (FRL-7341-2), through notices in the
In addition, this notice starts a 60-day public participation period during which the public is encouraged to submit risk management proposals or other comments on risk management for thiram. The Agency is providing an opportunity, through this notice, for interested parties to provide written comments on risk management proposals or ideas for thiram. Such comments and proposals could address ideas about how to manage dietary, occupational, or ecological risks on specific thiram use sites or crops across the United States or in a particular geographic region of the country. To address dietary risk, for example, commenters may choose to discuss the feasibility of modifications in use, and usages of thiram or suggest alternative measures to reduce residues contributing to dietary exposure. For occupational risks, commenters may suggest personal protective equipment or technologies to reduce exposure to workers and pesticide handlers. For ecological risks, commenters may suggest ways to reduce environmental exposure, e.g., exposure.
All comments should be submitted by August 31, 2004, using the methods in Unit I. of the
Environmental protection, Thiram, Pesticides, Tolerance reassessment.
Federal Trade Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issues a Final Rule implementing the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act (the “Act”), 15 U.S.C. 7601
Requests for copies of the Rule and the Statement of Basis and Purpose should be sent to the Commission's Public Reference Branch, Room 130, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. The complete record of this proceeding is also available at that address. Relevant portions of the proceeding, including the Rule and Statement of Basis and Purpose, are also available at the Commission's Web site,
Division of Advertising Practices, Thomas Pahl or Char Pagar [(202) 326-3528], Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Division of Advertising Practices, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.
The Contact Lens Rule (“the Rule”) implements the requirements of the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act (“the Act”), 15 U.S.C. 7601-7610. Specifically, the Rule: (1) Requires prescribers (such as optometrists and ophthalmologists) to provide patients with a copy of their contact lens prescription immediately upon completion of a contact lens fitting; (2) requires prescribers to provide or verify contact lens prescriptions to any third party designated by a patient; (3) prohibits prescribers from placing certain conditions on the release or verification of a contact lens prescription; (4) limits the circumstances under which a provider can require payment for an eye exam prior to releasing a contact lens prescription to a patient; (5) requires contact lens sellers to either obtain a copy of a patient's prescription or verify the prescription before selling contact lenses; (6) addresses the issue of private label contact lenses; (7) sets minimum expiration dates for contact lens prescriptions; (8) prohibits representations that contact lenses may be obtained without a prescription; (9) prohibits prescribers from using or requiring patients to sign any waiver or disclaimer of liability for the accuracy of an eye examination; (10) defines relevant terms; (11) establishes that violations of the proposed Rule will be treated as violations of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice under section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act; and (12) provides that State and local laws and regulations are preempted under certain circumstances.
On December 6, 2003, President Bush signed the Act into law.
The Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comment (“NPRM”) in the
In addition, the Commission enforces the Ophthalmic Practice Rules,
As noted above, the Commission published the proposed rule and accompanying analysis in the
Section 315.1 of the proposed Rule described the basis for, and the general scope of, the regulations in part 315—the “Contact Lens Rule”—which implements the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act. The Commission received no comments on this provision and adopts it without modification.
Congress recognized that consumers may be harmed if they face undue delays in receiving their contact lenses from a seller. Congress also acknowledged that consumers may be harmed if a seller provides contact lenses to a consumer based on an expired, inaccurate, or otherwise invalid prescription. Congress balanced these considerations in section 4(d)(3) of the Act by allowing a seller to treat a prescription as “verified” and sell contact lenses to a consumer if a prescriber has not notified the seller “within eight (8) business hours, or a similar time as defined by the Commission,” that a prescription is expired, inaccurate, or otherwise invalid.
The Act does not define “business hour” or set forth how to calculate “eight business hours.” The purpose of the verification period established under the Act, however, is to give prescribers an opportunity to determine whether prescriptions are expired, inaccurate, or otherwise invalid. Because prescribers make this determination during the hours that they are open, Congress apparently intended prescribers to have eight hours during which they are open for business to respond to a verification request.
Accordingly, in the proposed Rule, the Commission defined “business hour” as an hour between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., during a weekday excluding Federal holidays. The definition further specified that for verification requests received between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., “eight (8) business hours” would be calculated from the first business hour that occurs after the seller provides the prescription verification request to the prescriber, and conclude after eight business hours have elapsed. For verification requests received by a prescriber during non-business hours, the calculation of eight business hours would begin at 9 a.m. on the next weekday that is not a Federal holiday, and would end at 9 a.m. on the following weekday.
For the reasons discussed below, the Commission retains the definition of “business hour” as an hour between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., during a non-holiday weekday. However, the Commission has revised the rule to provide sellers with the option of counting a prescriber's regular business hours on Saturdays, so long as the seller has actual knowledge of these hours. In addition, the Commission has revised the calculation of “eight (8) business hours” so that the verification period ends—and a seller may sell contact lenses—as soon as eight business hours have elapsed. Finally, the Commission clarifies that business hours are to be determined based on the time zone of the prescriber.
The Commission's proposed definition of “business hour” generated a substantial number of public comments. A number of comments sought a definition that reflects prescribers' actual business hours. For example, one large Internet-based contact lens seller urged that sellers should have the option of determining the actual business hours of a particular prescriber and using those as an alternative to the Rule's “default” business hours.
A number of prescribers and their trade associations also sought a definition of “business hours” that reflects actual business hours. These commenters, however, explained that the Commission's proposed definition did not take into account days when a prescriber's office is closed and the prescriber cannot respond to a verification request within eight business hours. These commenters sought various exceptions or extensions to the business hour definition to accommodate circumstances such as days the prescriber's office is regularly closed; days the prescriber is performing surgery; and days a prescriber is out of the office for continuing education, illness, vacation, or inclement weather.
Few of the voluminous comments received on this issue proposed a means of accommodating the requested exceptions. Some suggested providing a longer verification period generally,
Having considered these comments, the Commission declines to adopt an actual hours or other prescriber-specific approach to business hours. Evidence in the record indicates that there are more than 50,000 prescribers in the United
In addition, several commenters, including optometric associations and one State board, voiced support for the proposed definition, particularly its limitation to weekdays and non-holidays.
Having determined that a general rule using uniform business hours is preferable to an actual hours standard, the Commission discusses below the remaining comments received on its proposed definition and the revisions the Commission has made to the Rule in response.
A number of commenters offered alternative definitions of business hours. A few commenters, including the California Board of Optometry, urged the Commission to consider adopting a verification time period that tracks California State law.
One contact lens seller, Wal-Mart, proposed a “24-hour” rule, somewhat similar to California's, under which the verification period would expire at the same time on the next business day after the prescriber received the verification request.
Another seller, 1-800 CONTACTS, proposed defining “business hours” as 9 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturday, based on a survey of actual prescriber business hours.
[For purposes of simplicity, the Commission has rounded off some of the averages set forth in the survey results to the closest 5-minute increment.] Then, final average daily opening and closing times—combining all four channels—were determined by weighting each channel's average to match the actual incidence of lenses dispensed among the four channels.
Finally, a group of 34 State Attorneys General commented that the proposed definition was too narrow because many prescribers are open longer hours and on weekends.
The Independent Women's Forum (Comment #1236) raised many of the same arguments as the State Attorneys General, and argued that the proposed definition of “business hours” would “seriously undermine[] women's autonomy by reversing the conveniences that have been created, in part, to support working women and mothers.”
The Commission addresses the commenters' specific proposals in detail below. However, having considered the comments, the Commission has decided to retain the proposed definition of “business hour” as an hour between 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on a non-holiday weekday. Evidence in the record clearly indicates that the 50,000 prescribers in the United States vary as to their actual business hours—in some cases widely. However, the Act clearly contemplates that prescribers should have a reasonable opportunity when they are open to respond to verification requests. The evidence indicates that most prescribers are open Monday through Friday, and that most are open for at least eight hours per day. Some appear to open earlier than 9 a.m., and some appear to be open after 5 p.m., but a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. rule generally should provide these prescribers eight hours during which they are actually open to respond to prescription verification requests.
Several commenters urged the Commission to include Saturday business hours in the Rule's definition of “business hours.”
Other commenters, however, pointed out that many prescribers are
Based on the comments and evidence, the Commission has revised the Rule to give sellers the
Because it may be burdensome for some sellers to obtain actual knowledge of prescribers' Saturday business hours,
To facilitate the use of Saturday business hours, the final Rule incorporates two related revisions to the proposed Rule. First, a seller that exercises its option to count a prescriber's regular Saturday business hours must state those hours clearly on the verification request.
The proposed definition of “business hour” excluded Sundays. The Commission did not receive any comments advocating the inclusion of Sundays in business hours. The evidence in the record also suggests that most prescribers are closed that day.
The Commission's proposed definition of “business hour” did not count Federal holidays. One commenter suggested that the definition should include all Federal holidays except the “major” ones—
The Commission received a number of comments on its proposed method of calculating eight business hours, some of which are discussed above. Under the proposed Rule, the eight-hour verification period would have expired—and a seller could ship a customer's order—at the start of the next business hour
The Commission recognizes that its proposed method of calculation would have imposed significant delays on sellers and consumers under some limited circumstances. For example, a verification request received after 5 p.m. on a Tuesday would not be deemed verified until 9 a.m. on Thursday. In addition, a request received after 5 p.m. on a Friday would not be deemed verified until 9 a.m. the following Tuesday—or at 9 a.m. the following Wednesday if Monday were a Federal holiday. Although the latter scenario would not occur frequently, such delay would have been significant.
Accordingly, the Commission has clarified in the final Rule that the eight-hour verification period ends—and a seller may sell contact lenses—
In addition, the Commission has clarified that the time period is calculated from the time the
A number of prescribers, as well as national and state optometric associations, commented that the Rule should specify that business hours are calculated based on the prescriber's time zone, not the seller's.
The proposed Rule defined “Commission” to mean the Federal Trade Commission.
The Act does not define the term “contact lens.” In the NPRM, the Commission asked whether the Rule should define the term and, if so, whether the definition should include non-corrective (
The Commission received a number of comments on this issue. Most commenters recommended defining the term, and most urged the Commission to specifically include “cosmetic,” “decorative,” or “non-corrective” lenses, or otherwise explicitly state that the Rule applies to
Two commenters noted, however, that some cosmetic lenses currently are available without a prescription.
The Act focuses on the release and verification of contact lens prescriptions. The Act also prohibits advertising that contact lenses “may be obtained without a prescription.”
Section 11(1) of the Act defines a “contact lens fitting” as “the process that begins after an initial eye examination for contact lenses and ends when a successful fit has been achieved or, in the case of a renewal prescription, ends when the prescriber determines that no change in the existing prescription is required.”
A number of commenters suggested that the term “medically necessary follow-up examinations” be defined specifically in the final Rule.
One trade association also requested a clarification that the initial evaluation includes giving a patient a pair of lenses to wear on a trial basis, and that the fitting is not complete until the prescriber settles on the final prescription. American Society for Cataract and Refractive Surgery (Comment #1148). The Commission believes that the proposed definition of “contact lens fitting” clearly and sufficiently indicates that a contact lens fitting may include an initial evaluation of the fit of the contact lens on the eye (except in the case of renewals) as well as any medically necessary follow-up exams.
Section 11(3) of the Act defines a “contact lens prescription” as “a prescription, issued in accordance with State and Federal law, that contains sufficient information for the complete and accurate filling of a prescription for contact lenses, including the following: (a) The name of the patient; (b) the date of examination; (c) the issue date and expiration date of prescription; (d) the name, postal address, telephone number, and facsimile telephone number of prescriber; (e) the power, material or manufacturer or both of the prescribed contact lens; (f) the base curve or appropriate designation of the prescribed contact lens; (g) the diameter, when appropriate, of the prescribed contact lens; and (h) in the case of a private label contact lens, the name of the manufacturer, trade name of the private label brand, and, if applicable, trade name of equivalent brand name.”
Several prescriber trade associations,
Sellers, in contrast, noted that the Act does not provide for prescribers to limit the number of boxes or units dispensed so long as the prescription is current.
After reviewing the comments, the Commission has decided not to modify the definition of contact lens prescription to require the inclusion of the quantity of lenses or refills allowed. The Act does not require the inclusion of quantity information on the prescription. In addition, if the quantity of lenses is included on the prescription, then prescribers may use quantity limits to impose prescription expiration dates that are effectively shorter than the one-year period imposed under the Act. Moreover, it is not necessary to include the quantity of lenses on the prescription to limit patients' ability to circumvent the expiration date. Section 315.5(b) requires verification requests to contain the quantity of lenses ordered, and as discussed below in section 315.5(d), the quantity ordered may be a legitimate basis for a prescriber to treat a request for verification of a prescription as “inaccurate.” The verification process itself thus generally allows prescribers to prevent patients from ordering excessive contact lenses.
The Commission recognizes that some State laws or regulations may require prescribers to include such information on the prescription. Prescribers in States without such requirements may also choose to include such information on the prescription.
The Commission, however, emphasizes that prescribers may not use quantity limits to frustrate the prescription expiration requirements imposed by section 315.6 of the final Rule. The quantity of lenses or refills specified in the prescription must be sufficient to last through the prescription's expiration date, which typically will be one year after the issue date. If a lesser quantity of lenses or refills is specified in the prescription, the prescriber must have a legitimate medical reason for doing so, and the requirements imposed by section 315.6(b) of the final Rule on writing a prescription for less than one year must be met.
A few sellers commented on the Rule provision regarding private label lenses.
Another seller suggested that the definition be modified to require those who prescribe private label contact lenses to identify on the prescription the “trade name of a brand name sold to alternative sellers.”
A few prescribers recommended that a contact lens wearing schedule be required on the prescription.
One commenter suggested that the Commission modify the proposed definition to require prescribers to include an e-mail address on prescriptions for verification purposes, presumably to facilitate communications between sellers and prescribers.
One prescribers' trade association recommended that the Rule expressly allow contact lens prescriptions to include language underscoring that there should be no substitutions.
The proposed Rule defined “direct communication” to mean a “completed communication by telephone, facsimile, or electronic mail.”
The Commission received a substantial number of comments objecting to sellers' use of automated telephone systems to convey verification requests to prescribers. Most of these commenters were individual prescribers or prescriber trade associations, a number of whom argued that automated requests do not constitute direct communication and should be expressly prohibited under the Rule.
Other commenters stated that automated systems often malfunction
The Commission recognizes that automated telephone systems may create communication problems as described in the comments received. Nevertheless, we decline to revise the definition of “direct communication” to prohibit the use of automated telephone verification requests. The Act expressly authorizes sellers to send verification requests by telephone,
Nevertheless, the Commission emphasizes that calls from automated telephone systems must fully comply with all applicable Rule requirements. For example, any automated verification request must (1) provide complete verification request information as required under section 315.5(b), and this information must be either received by a person on the telephone or otherwise received in full (
In addition, the Commission will continue to monitor whether full, valid requests for verification of a prescription are being made through the use of automated telephone systems. If evidence demonstrates that sellers are not making valid verification requests but are providing consumers with contact lenses despite deficient requests, the Commission may revisit this issue.
Other commenters argued that the Commission should alter the scope of technologies that may be used to achieve direct communication between sellers and prescribers. Some commenters urged the Commission to define “direct communication” more broadly than originally proposed. For example, one seller suggested the term include the existing technologies currently specified—facsimile, telephone, and e-mail—plus any “substantially equivalent communication technology,” so as to specifically embrace future technologies.
The Act plainly states that “direct communication” includes communication by telephone, facsimile, or electronic mail.”
Commenters also asked the Commission to define or clarify when a “completed” communication by telephone, facsimile or electronic mail has occurred. One Internet-based contact lens seller proposed an expansive definition that would include either (a) affirmative evidence that a communication was completed, (b) evidence that a fax or e-mail or substantially equivalent communication technology had been attempted twice, or (c) evidence that live telephone verification had been attempted.
A number of prescribers sought narrower definitions of “completed” communications or more stringent requirements on sellers, such as the receipt of a confirmation of successful fax transmission and confirmation that someone was available in the prescriber's office within the eight-hour time period to respond.
The specific question of whether a message left on an answering machine or voicemail constitutes a “completed” communication generated a number of comments. Most of these comments—primarily from prescribers and one of their trade associations—argued that the Rule should not permit voice messages.
The language of the Act does not specifically define when a seller's communication of verification information is completed. Legislative history is instructive on the issue of what constitutes a completed communication, however. In its Report, the House Committee made clear that it intended direct communication to mean “a message [that] has been both sent and received.”
Having considered the comments, the Commission declines to further define what constitutes a “completed” communication in the Rule. However, the Commission confirms, as explained in the NPRM, that a communication is “completed” when all of the required information is received by the recipient. For example, direct communication by telephone would require reaching and speaking with the intended recipient, or clearly leaving a voice message on the telephone answering machine of the intended recipient setting forth all of the required information. Direct communication by facsimile or electronic mail similarly would require that the intended recipient receive the facsimile or electronic mail message. A facsimile confirmation will usually provide a sufficient basis to conclude that a facsimile communication was successfully received. E-mails are typically received almost instantaneously after they are sent, so confirmation that an e-mail was sent will generally constitute a sufficient basis to conclude that the e-mail was received.
It is incumbent upon the party initiating the communication to use a method that enables the recipient to receive all the information being communicated, and the eight-business-hour verification period does not begin until such receipt occurs. Moreover, sellers must document the communications as provided in part 315.5(f) of the final Rule.
The Commission also declines to impose additional requirements on sellers to confirm receipt of communications by prescribers. The Act reveals no indication that Congress intended to impose different standards when sellers communicate with prescribers than when prescribers communicate with sellers. The record
Section 5(c) of the Act defines the “issue date” as “the date on which the patient receives a copy of the prescription.”
Several commenters suggested that the definition be modified to make clear that the “issue date” is the date on which the prescriber provides the patient with the prescription at the completion of the examination or fitting.
Section 2(a)(1) of the Act requires a prescriber to provide a copy of the prescription to the patient when the prescriber “completes a contact lens fitting.”
The proposed Rule defined “ophthalmic goods” to mean contact lenses, eyeglasses, or any component of eyeglasses.
The proposed Rule defined “ophthalmic services” to mean the measuring, fitting, and adjusting of ophthalmic goods subsequent to an eye examination.
The Commission's proposed Rule defined “prescriber” to mean, with respect to contact lens prescriptions, an ophthalmologist, optometrist, or other person permitted under State law to issue prescriptions for contact lenses in compliance with any applicable requirements established by the Food and Drug Administration.
The Commission received a number of comments on this proposed definition, most of which related to the application of this definition to licensed opticians currently permitted under State law to fit contact lenses. According to the commenters, these opticians—sometimes referred to as “dispensing opticians”—may perform a contact lens fitting based on an eyeglass prescription that contains a notation from the prescriber that the patient is “OK for contact lenses” or similar language.
Several commenters, including the Opticians Association of America, urged the Commission to make clear in the Rule that licensed dispensing opticians must release contact lens prescriptions to their patients at the end of a contact lens fitting.
Having reviewed the comments, the Commission has concluded that, to the extent dispensing opticians are authorized under state law to issue prescriptions, they are “prescribers” under the Act and are required to release contact lens prescriptions at the completion of a contact lens fitting just like other prescribers. The Commission believes that such a requirement is both consistent with, and necessary to fully effectuate, Congress's intent to provide consumers with their prescriptions. Accordingly, the Commission's final Rule defines “prescriber” to include opticians authorized or permitted under state law to perform contact lens fitting services who also are permitted to issue contact lens prescriptions.
Another commenter recommended that the Rule prohibit anyone from fitting and dispensing contact lenses unless that person is properly licensed to write a prescription. Kentucky Optometric Association (Comment #1101).
Section 315.2 of the proposed Rule defines “private label contact lenses” as “contact lenses that are sold under the label of a seller where the contact lenses are identical to lenses made by the same manufacturer but sold under the labels of other sellers.”
Section 2(a)(1) of the Act requires that “when a prescriber completes a contact lens fitting, the prescriber—(1) whether or not requested by the patient, shall provide a copy of the contact lens prescription to the patient.”
As an initial matter, the Commission notes that thousands of consumers submitted comments expressing strong support for the Act and proposed Rule's prescription release requirement.
The State Attorneys General expressed hope that the prescription release requirement will accelerate the frequency with which patients provide an actual copy of the prescription to a non-prescribing seller.
A few prescribers expressed concern about the health implications of the immediate prescription release obligation imposed by section 315.3(a)(1).
Several commenters expressed the concern that prescribers may pressure consumers to purchase contact lenses from them if, prior to releasing the written prescription, prescribers can try to persuade consumers to make such a purchase. These commenters urge the Commission to require that prescribers release the written prescription immediately following the contact lens fitting and before attempting to sell and dispense contact lenses.
A few commenters suggested that the prescriber be given the option to not release the prescription or to release it for “informational purposes only” if the patient has purchased a full year's supply of contact lenses at the time of the eye examination.
Two commenters recommended that the prescription release obligation be limited to one release per patient.
Finally, a number of prescribers suggested that custom-designed soft lenses and rigid gas permeable lenses be exempt from the release requirement because such lenses require significant interaction between the prescriber and the manufacturer as well as proper follow-up and medical management.
Section 2(a)(2) of the Act requires that, when a prescriber completes a contact lens fitting, the prescriber “shall, as directed by any person designated to act on behalf of the patient, provide or verify the contact lens prescription by electronic or other means.”
Prescriber trade associations recommended that sellers be required to obtain written proof of authority to act on the patient's behalf.
After reviewing the comments, the Commission has not included in the final Rule the requirement that sellers present written proof that they are agents of consumers. Section 4(g) of the Act expressly includes communications by telephone as a means of “direct communication” that sellers can use to submit verification information to prescribers.
A few prescribers commented that the Rule does not state how many times a prescriber is required to verify a prescription.
Section 315.3(b) of the proposed Rule would prohibit prescribers from imposing certain conditions on the release or verification of a contact lens prescription.
The Commission received numerous comments relating to the prohibition against prescribers' requiring the purchase of contact lenses as a condition of prescription release. Most of these commenters urged the agency to add an exception in the Rule for “specialty” or “custom” lenses—such as rigid gas permeable and toric lenses—which are manufactured specifically for an individual patient and for which manufacturers do not provide free trial pairs.
The Act expressly prohibits prescribers from conditioning prescription release on the purchase of contact lenses. The Commission thus does not have the authority to grant an exception to that prohibition. Moreover, the record indicates that some sellers (other than prescribers) can supply custom-designed soft and rigid gas permeable lenses to consumers. Consequently, the creation of an exception for custom-designed soft and rigid gas permeable lenses would be inconsistent with the Act's goal of meaningful prescription portability and increased consumer choice. The final Rule accordingly includes no such exception.
Nevertheless, as the commenters explained, “speciality” or custom-made lenses are sometimes necessary to complete the fitting process. To the extent these lenses are necessary to complete the fitting process, prescribers may charge patients for such lenses as part of the cost of the fitting process,
This provision of the proposed Rule prohibits prescribers from requiring payment in addition to, or as part of, the fee for an eye examination, fitting, and evaluation, as a condition of prescription release or verification. The Commission received few comments on this provision and adopts it without modification in the final Rule.
One commenter recommended that prescribers be allowed to charge a reasonable fee for providing verification services to their competition.
Another commenter asked the Commission to clarify that the Rule prohibits prescribers from requiring payment for “service agreements” or similar follow-up exams beyond the contact lens fitting.
On a similar point, a few commenters raised the issue of whether section 315.3(b) permits “bundling” practices by prescribers. One commenter asked the Commission to clarify that this section does not prohibit prescribers from offering a “package deal” on an exam and the initial set of diagnostic lenses used to establish proper fit, medical suitability for contact lens wear, etc.
Other commenters complained about the practice of bundling.
The Act does not prohibit a prescriber from offering a bundled package of an eye examination and contact lenses, provided that consumers have the option to purchase the eye examination separately and still receive their prescription. The Commission thus clarifies that bundling of the eye examination and contact lenses is not a per se violation of the Act or the final Rule.
In its NPRM, the Commission specifically asked for comment about whether prescribers itemize charges and fees in a manner that distinguishes the amount the patient is paying for an eye examination, fitting, and evaluation from the amount he or she is paying for contact lenses.
Finally, one commenter asked the Commission to prohibit additional conduct by prescribers that undermines prescription portability and the intent of the Act.
This provision of the proposed Rule prohibited prescribers from requiring a patient to sign a waiver or release as a condition of releasing or verifying a prescription.
Section 315.4 of the proposed Rule states that a “prescriber may require payment of fees for an eye examination, fitting, and evaluation before the release of a contact lens prescription, but only if the prescriber requires immediate payment in the case of an examination that reveals no requirement for ophthalmic goods.”
One prescribers' trade association stated that some of its members have misinterpreted this provision as prohibiting them from requiring payment of fees for an eye exam, fitting and evaluation before the release of a contact lens prescription.
Another prescribers' trade association asked the Commission to clarify that insurance coverage must be “current” and “valid” to ensure that patients do not attempt to defraud providers.
Section 315.5(a) of the proposed Rule stated that a “seller may sell contact lenses only in accordance with a contact lens prescription for the patient that is: (1) presented to the seller by the patient or prescriber directly or by facsimile; or (2) verified by direct communication.”
A number of individual prescribers and state optometric associations recommended that the Rule be revised to require the seller to obtain the original prescription and prohibit the use of copies.
A few commenters requested that the Commission broadly interpret the phrase “directly or by facsimile” in Section 4(a)(1) of the Act
The Commission has concluded that a patient or a prescriber may present the prescription to a seller in person, by mail, by facsimile, or through a digital image of the prescription that is sent via electronic mail.
Furthermore, the Commission has concluded that the provision of prescription information from the consumer to the seller by telephone or by e-mail (other than an e-mail containing a digital image of the prescription, as discussed above) does not meet the “directly or by facsimile” standard imposed by section 4(a)(1) of the Act.
The Commission has further decided not to include “substantially equivalent future technologies” within the scope of acceptable direct presentation mechanisms. Section 4(a)(1) of the Act does not expressly reference or contemplate future technologies, and the Commission is not aware of other technologies which meet the statutory standard. The Commission therefore declines to include future technologies that do not involve an exact copy of the prescription within the scope of acceptable direct presentation mechanisms at this time.
A few commenters recommended that the Rule be revised to provide prescribers with the ability to delegate
Section 315.5(b) of the proposed Rule sets forth the information that a seller must provide the prescriber through direct communication when the seller is seeking to verify a contact lens prescription.
As discussed above, the Commission has modified the definition of “business hour” in section 315.2 of the final Rule to “include, at the seller's option, a prescriber's regular business hours on Saturdays, provided that the seller has actual knowledge of these hours.” To facilitate the use of Saturday business hours, the Commission has revised section 315.5(b) of the final Rule to require sellers who opt to count such hours to state the prescriber's Saturday business hours in the verification request. Specifically, section 315.5(b)(7) of the final Rule provides that “if the seller opts to include the prescriber's regular business hours on Saturdays as “business hours” for purposes of paragraph (c)(3) of this section,” the verification request must include “a clear statement of the prescriber's regular Saturday business hours.” This information must be included in the verification request to alert the prescriber in case the seller is relying upon inaccurate information regarding the prescriber's regular Saturday business hours.
Numerous commenters requested that the Commission either revise the Rule to require a standard verification request form or publish a model verification request form.
A number of prescriber groups and individual prescribers submitted comments expressing concern that verification requests from sellers often do not contain required information, including the date and time of the request.
One prescriber trade association and an individual prescriber suggested that the verification request include additional information, such as the patient's telephone number and the patient's date of birth, which prescribers can use to search their records for the patient's file and to ensure that verification requests for individuals with the same name and same address do not create confusion.
A State optometry association requested that the verification request contain the prescription's expiration date as well as the number of refills prescribed.
Another state optometric association recommended that the seller be required to provide its e-mail address on the
A few prescribers requested that the seller be required to verify or confirm that the prescriber who is being asked to verify the prescription is the prescriber who fitted the contact lenses in question.
Regarding the requirement in section 315.5(b)(6) of the Rule that the verification request include the name of a contact person at the seller's company, one prescribers' trade association commented that the person whose name is provided should be accessible to the prescriber and actually be handling the verification request.
In comparison, one seller recommended that the contact name disclosure requirement in section 315.5(b)(6) be eliminated because the verification process already anticipates that the prescriber has a means of direct communication with the seller.
A few State optometric associations recommended that prescribers be allowed to determine the communication mechanism that sellers must use to submit a verification request to the prescriber (
Section 315.5(c) of the proposed Rule states that a “prescription is verified under paragraph (a)(2) of this section only if one of the following occurs: (1) the prescriber confirms the prescription is accurate by direct communication with the seller; (2) the prescriber informs the seller through direct communication that the prescription is inaccurate and provides the accurate prescription; or (3) the prescriber fails to communicate with the seller within eight (8) business hours after receiving from the seller the information described in paragraph (b) of this section.”
Many prescribers either opposed or expressed significant concern about the passive verification system imposed by this section of the Rule.
A few prescribers' trade associations requested that the Commission clarify that, for purposes of section 315.5(c)(3), “eight business hours” begins when the prescriber receives a
After reviewing these comments, the Commission has concluded that the prescription verification period begins when the prescriber receives a
The Rule does not expressly require prescribers to notify sellers of incomplete requests. If the seller is not informed that a verification request is incomplete, however, a sale based on an expired, inaccurate or otherwise invalid prescription may occur after eight business hours. Because this may pose health risks to patients, the Commission encourages prescribers to inform sellers if they receive incomplete verification requests. In addition, the Commission notes that the Rule does not require prescribers to complete incomplete verification requests, but does not prohibit prescribers from doing so.
Section 4(d)(3) of the Act states that the prescription verification period is “8 business hours or a similar time as defined by the Federal Trade Commission.”
Many commenters specifically addressed the length of the prescription verification period. For example, one seller indicated that the prescription verification period contained in section 315.5(c)(3) of the proposed Rule of eight business hours is too long, and recommended shortening it to five hours from the time the seller makes the verification request, and to two hours if a live agent of the seller is able to communicate with a live agent of the prescriber by telephone.
In addition, numerous consumers voiced their support for little or no delay in the shipping of contact lenses.
In contrast, numerous prescriber groups and individual prescribers argued that the prescription verification period in the proposed Rule should be extended because it is too short to account for prescribers' busy schedules, illness, multiple location practices, vacations, professional conferences, and/or other absences from the office.
After reviewing the comments, the Commission has decided to retain the “eight business hour” standard in the final Rule. The “eight business hour” standard was taken directly from the Act, and the Commission has concluded that there is insufficient evidence in the record to justify a modification of the statutory standard.
The Commission recognizes that any verification period requires patients to wait to receive their contact lenses from non-prescriber sources. However, Congress expressly required the Commission to impose a verification period of “eight business hours or a similar time” in Section 4(d)(3) of the Act.
The Commission has decided not to implement a verification period shorter than the “eight business hour” period contained in the proposed Rule. The California standard, which is cited by one proponent of a shorter verification period, involves a verification period that may be as long as 24 hours or as short as approximately five business hours. The California experience therefore does not support the imposition of a blanket five-hour verification period, and, for the reasons discussed in detail above in the definition of “business hour” under section 315.2 of the Rule, the Commission has decided not to adopt the California approach. In addition, the Commission notes that the record contains no evidence to support the two-hour verification period proposed for situations in which a live agent of the seller is able to contact a live agent of the buyer. There is no reason to believe that a prescriber will be able (or should be required) to respond to a verification request more quickly simply because someone in the prescriber's office is able to answer the telephone when it rings.
Moreover, as noted above, any alternative verification period must be “similar” to the eight-business-hour period contained in the Act.
The Commission also declines to implement a prescription verification period longer than “eight business hours” because the evidence in the record does not support such a change. As noted above in the discussion of the definition of “business hours” under section 315.2 of the Rule, survey evidence indicates that most prescribers' offices are open at least eight hours a day from Monday to Friday.
Moreover, as noted above, the Act requires that any alternative verification period be “similar” to the eight-business-hour period contained in the Act.
Communication between prescribers and sellers forms the foundation for section 315.5(c) of the Rule. However, a number of prescribers' trade associations and individual prescribers commented that prescribers regularly have difficulty communicating with sellers because sellers' telephone and fax lines are busy.
The Act implies that prescribers will have an opportunity to respond to verification requests. The Commission declines to articulate with specificity the equipment or personnel that sellers must have to handle verification requests, so that they will have flexibility in determining the most effective and efficient means of providing this opportunity.
Several prescriber trade associations and at least one prescriber suggested that prescribers be allowed to respond to a verification request by submitting a copy of the patient's prescription to the seller.
One prescriber suggested that a national database of contact lens prescriptions be created to allow prescribers and sellers to communicate.
Several State optometric associations suggested that patients should be required to certify that they have had an eye examination in the past one or two years or, alternatively, should be asked by the seller if they have had an eye exam in the past one or two years.
A significant number of prescriber trade associations and individual prescribers suggested that the Rule be modified to require sellers to notify prescribers when the seller fills a patient's contact lens order and to include in that notification the quantity of contact lenses it supplied to the patient.
In contrast to the prescribers, sellers argued that any attempt by prescribers to limit the quantity of contact lenses supplied to patients under a current prescription would be unwarranted under the Act.
After reviewing the comments, the Commission has decided not to require contact lens sellers to notify prescribers or patients when contact lenses are supplied to patients or when a prescriber refuses to verify a prescription. The Act does not impose such notification requirements. Moreover, although the Act creates a prescription release and verification system for contact lenses, it does not impose any post-verification obligations (other than recordkeeping requirements) on sellers, prescribers, or patients. Consequently, the Commission has concluded that the imposition of the suggested post-verification notification obligation upon sellers would be beyond the mandate of the Act.
One seller commented that if passive verification has occurred under section 315.5(c)(3) of the Rule and the seller does not know the prescription expiration date,
One State optometry board recommended that the seller be prohibited from shipping contact lenses or shipping additional contact lenses to a patient if the prescriber notifies the seller that the prescription is inaccurate, invalid or expired after the eight-business-hour period has passed.
One prescribers' trade association recommended that a seller be required to document that a prescriber is licensed whenever it fills a prescription via passive verification.
Another prescribers' trade association recommended that sellers provide a written message [“Warning: If you are having any of the following symptoms, remove your contact lenses immediately and consult your eye care practitioner before wearing your lenses again: unexplained eye discomfort, watering, vision change or redness.”] whenever lenses are supplied to a patient.
In the NPRM, the Commission asked whether the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”)
The majority of the commenters on this question agreed that the Privacy Rule permits eye care providers to provide contact lens prescription verification information to an authorized third-party seller without the patient's written authorization.
One commenter noted that the preamble to the HIPAA Privacy Rule specifically indicates that disclosure of protected health information by an eye doctor to a distributor of contact lenses for the purpose of confirming a contact lens prescription is considered “treatment,” and Section 164.506 of the HIPAA Privacy Rule permits disclosure under such circumstances.
A few commenters disagreed, stating that a prescription verification request should be accompanied by a signed authorization from the patient to release the medical information.
The Commission does not believe that the HIPAA Privacy Rule limits prescribers' ability to verify contact lens prescriptions under the Contact Lens Rule. First, the HIPAA Privacy Rule permits a “covered entity” to use or disclose protected health information without patient authorization “for treatment, payment, or health care operations.”
Section 315.5(d) of the proposed Rule states that if “a prescriber informs a seller before the deadline under paragraph (c)(3) of this section that the contact lens prescription is inaccurate, expired, or otherwise invalid, the seller shall not fill the prescription. The prescriber shall specify the basis for the inaccuracy or invalidity of the prescription. If the prescription communicated by the seller to the prescriber is inaccurate, the prescriber shall correct it, and the prescription shall then be deemed verified under paragraph (c)(2) of this section.”
If some of the information on a verification request is incorrect, but can be corrected, the prescription is “inaccurate” for purposes of section 315.5(d) of the Rule. Several commenters addressed the issue of inaccurate prescriptions. A few State optometric associations requested that the eight-business-hour prescription verification period be extended or treated as a new request when a prescriber notifies the seller that a correction is required.
One State optometric association suggested that sellers be required to verify receipt of corrections submitted by prescribers.
The Commission also has concluded that the quantity ordered may be a legitimate basis for a prescriber to treat a request for verification of a prescription as “inaccurate,” because Congress indicated in section 4(c) of the Act that the quantity of lenses ordered is relevant information by requiring sellers to include the quantity ordered in prescription verification requests.
If a seller seeks verification of a prescription for which the expiration date has passed, the prescription is “expired” for purposes of section 315.5(d) of the Rule. Numerous commenters addressed prescribers' obligations with respect to expired prescriptions. One seller recommended that the Rule explicitly require prescribers to provide sellers the examination date and prescription issue date when reporting that a prescription has expired.
The Commission has concluded that prescribers should be allowed to respond that a prescription is “expired” without providing additional information to the seller. Section 4(e) of the Act establishes three categories of invalid prescriptions (
A number of prescribers indicated that a prescription should be deemed expired for purposes of section 315.5(d) of the Rule when the prescribed number of refills has been filled.
An “otherwise invalid” prescription under section 315.5(d) of the Rule includes, for example, situations where the verification request does not contain sufficient information to allow the prescriber to identify the patient, identifies a person who is not the prescriber's patient, or identifies a patient who has developed a medical condition which prohibits the use of contact lenses.
One seller requested that the Commission expressly define an invalid prescription as one that has expired or does not apply to the buyer.
Several prescriber trade associations and prescribers stated that prescribers regularly receive multiple verification requests for the same patient from a seller, even after the prescriber has responded to the original verification request.
Section 315.5(e) of the proposed Rule prohibits the alteration of prescriptions by stating that a “seller may not alter a contact lens prescription. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a seller may substitute for private label contact lenses specified on a prescription identical contact lenses that the same company manufactures and sells under different labels.”
A number of prescribers and prescriber trade associations
One seller commented that the Act is based on the assumption that sellers can easily obtain equivalent national brands for private label lenses, but, the seller argued, this assumption is incorrect.
In accordance with the Act,
Paragraph 315.5(f)(1) of the proposed Rule would require that sellers keep copies of prescriptions (including an e-mail containing a digital image of the prescription) or fax copies of prescriptions they receive directly from a patient or a prescriber.
Paragraphs 315.5(f)(2) and (3) of the proposed Rule specified the documentation sellers would have to maintain relating to verification requests.
The Commission received several comments on its proposed recordkeeping provision. Some commenters agreed with the provision generally.
Having considered the comments, the Commission has revised the proposed Rule to: (1) Require records of telephone communications to include the names of the individuals who participated in the call; (2) eliminate the requirement that sellers retain telephone bills; and (3) permit electronic storage of logs and other records. The Commission believes these revisions will further the recordkeeping requirements' purpose of facilitating investigation of whether a rule violation has occurred, and also reduce the burden on sellers of maintaining documents.
As set forth above in the Commission's discussion of the
Section 315.6 of the Commission's proposed Rule addresses expiration dates for contact lens prescriptions and closely tracks the requirements set forth in the Act.
The Commission received several comments on this provision of the proposed Rule. For the reasons set forth below, the Commission has retained this provision as originally proposed.
With respect to the general rule that a prescription shall expire not less than one year after its issue date, some commenters agreed with the minimum and wanted State laws specifying short expiration periods to be preempted.
In its NPRM, the Commission specifically sought comment on what circumstances would provide a legitimate medical reason for setting an expiration date of less than one year.
The Commission received several other comments relating to the “medical judgment” exception. One commenter urged the Commission to recognize that setting a prescription expiration date of less than one year should occur “only in exceptional circumstances.”
With respect to prescriptions of less than one year, section 315.6(b) of the proposed Rule would require prescribers to document the medical reasons “with sufficient detail to allow for review by a qualified professional in the field.” One commenter asked the Commission to clarify the applicable standard of review.
Section 315.7 of the proposed Rule would prohibit any person that engages in the manufacture, processing, assembly, sale, offering for sale, or distribution of contact lenses from representing, by advertisement, sales presentation, or otherwise, that contact lenses may be obtained without a prescription.
Several commenters, primarily prescribers and some of their trade
Subsection 315.8 of the proposed Rule stated that a “prescriber may not place on a prescription, or require the patient to sign, or deliver to the patient, a form or notice waiving or disclaiming the liability or responsibility of the prescriber for the accuracy of the eye examination.”
The Commission received one comment from a prescriber who voiced his support for the provision.
Section 315.9 of the proposed Rule addressed the Commission's enforcement of the Rule.
Section 315.10 of the proposed Rule stated that the provisions of the Contact Lens Rule are separate and severable from one another, and that if any provision is stayed or determined to be invalid, it is the Commission's intention that the remaining provisions shall continue in effect. The Commission received no comments on this provision and retains it.
A number of comments asked that the Commission clarify to what extent the final Rule preempts State law. For example, some commenters urged the Commission to clarify that the Rule preempts State laws on issues such as prescription expiration dates, the substitution of equivalent brand contact lenses, and other allegedly “anti-competitive” State laws.
A Federal law may preempt State law either through (1) express statutory preemption; (2) implied preemption where the intent of the Federal law is to occupy the field exclusively; or (3) implied preemption where State and Federal law actually conflict.
The Act does not expressly state that it preempts any State laws. The language of the Act, however, appears to be inconsistent with the language of some State laws. For example, the Act sets an expiration date for contact lens prescriptions of “not less than one year after the issue date of the prescription if * * * State law specifies * * * a date that is less than one year after the issue date.”
In addition, certain State laws regarding prescription release and verification requirements appear to be an obstacle to the accomplishment of the purposes and objectives of the Act. The Act was intended to create “[a] uniform national standard for prescription release and verification * * *.”
The Commission believes that State laws or regulations restricting prescription release or requiring “active” prescription verification—that is, prescribers actually must confirm and verify all prescriptions to sellers—would frustrate the purpose of the Act. Congress clearly intended to allow consumers greater freedom to choose the seller from whom they purchase their contact lenses. To further this goal, the Act requires that consumers receive their prescriptions at the end of the contact lens fitting process. It also provides that a seller may ship if a prescriber has not verified a prescription within a defined period of time, thereby preventing prescribers from failing to respond to a verification request to preclude consumers from buying contact lenses from a different seller. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the Act preempts any State laws or regulations that restrict prescription release or require active verification, because they would undermine Congress's purpose of giving consumers greater freedom in their choice of sellers from whom they purchase their contact lenses.
Accordingly, the Commission has added part 315.11 to the final Rule that explicitly preempts State and local laws and regulations that establish a prescription expiration date of less than one year or that restrict prescription release or require active verification. In addition, part 315.11 also preempts any other State or local laws or regulations that are inconsistent with the Act or this part but only to the extent of the inconsistency.
In its NPRM, the Commission also proposed two clerical amendments to the Ophthalmic Practice Rules designed to clarify the relationship between those Rules and the Contact Lens Rule. First, the Commission proposed changing the title of the Ophthalmic Practices Rules to “Ophthalmic Practice Rules (Eyeglass Rule).” Second, the Commission proposed adding to the Ophthalmic Practice Rules a cross-reference to the Contact Lens Rule, similar to the reference contained in section 315.1 of the Contact Lens Rule. The Commission received no comments on these proposed amendments and adopts them without modification.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, as amended, 44 U.S.C. 3501
A few commenters confirmed that the Commission estimate of one minute is an appropriate estimation of the time it takes prescribers to provide a copy of a contact lens prescription to a patient at the completion of a contact lens fitting.
Several commenters—primarily prescribers—stated that responding to verification requests from sellers takes more than one minute.
Responding to a verification request does not impose a paperwork burden under the PRA, however, because the Rule does not require the prescriber to provide information to a third party. Rather, under the Rule, the prescriber determines whether to respond to a verification request, and, if so, what information to provide to the seller. If, for example, the prescription information contained in a verification request is not expired, inaccurate or otherwise invalid, the prescriber need not respond at all. Thus, depending on the particular circumstances of a particular verification request, the prescriber may or may not disclose information. Accordingly, these comments do not necessitate revising the Commission's original burden estimate.
Contact lens sellers must maintain records for three years of all direct communications involved in obtaining verification of a contact lens prescription, as well as prescriptions, or copies thereof, which they receive directly from consumers or prescribers.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires an agency to provide an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) with a proposed rule and a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”) with the final rule, if any, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In its NPRM, the Commission stated its expectation that the proposed Rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For those reasons, the Commission deemed the NPRM as notice to the Small Business Administration of the agency's certification of no effect.
The Act directs the Commission to prescribe rules implementing the Act not later than 180 days after the Act takes effect on February 4, 2004.
The Commission received very few comments on its IRFA. These comments generally challenged the Commission's expectation that the Act and Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. One comment stated that, “[w]hile we agree that most of these burdens are mandated by the Act, they will nonetheless be quite substantial,” and, as the Commission acknowledged in its NPRM, “most of the prescribers affected by this statute will be small entities.”
The Commission recognizes the Rule imposes burdens on small entities, and the Commission has addressed some of these burdens in the context of the Paperwork Reduction Act in above. However, these burdens are mandated by the Act. Moreover, some of these burdens are minimal, relative to prescribers' overall business costs. For example, the Commission has estimated—and commenters agree—that prescription release will require approximately one minute per patient, and that documenting medical reasons for setting prescription expiration dates shorter than one year likely already occurs in the ordinary course of business. The obligation to verify prescriptions imposes more burden, but the evidence in the record suggests it also is relatively small as compared to overall business costs: although one commenter indicated that some prescribers receive multiple verification requests per day, other evidence in the record suggests that prescribers receive, on average, just under two (2) verification requests per week—a significantly smaller burden.
Furthermore, as discussed earlier, the Commission has made certain revisions in the final Rule to reduce the burdens on businesses regardless of size—
The Rule applies to both “prescribers” and “sellers” of contact lenses. As stated in the NPRM,
As mandated by the Act, the Rule imposes disclosure and recordkeeping requirements, within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act, on contact lens prescribers and sellers. With respect to disclosure, section 315.3(a) the Rule requires prescribers to provide patients with a copy of their contact lens prescription upon completion of a contact lens fitting, and to provide such prescriptions to third parties authorized to act on behalf of patients.
The Rule also implements several recordkeeping requirements. First, if a prescriber sets a contact lens prescription expiration date shorter than one year, section 315.6(b) of the Rule requires the prescriber to document the medical reasons justifying the shorter expiration date and maintain that record for three years. Second, section 315.5(g) of the Rule requires sellers to maintain records of all direct communications relating to prescription verification. The specific records a seller must retain vary depending on the manner of communication.
The Commission has obtained clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for these requirements.
The final Rule's disclosure and recordkeeping requirements are designed to impose the minimum burden on all affected members of the industry, regardless of size. The Act itself does not allow the Commission any latitude to treat small businesses differently, such as by exempting a particular category of firm or setting forth a lesser standard of compliance for any category of firm. Thus, although the Commission recognizes that the Rule imposes some burden on small entities, it does not believe the burden will be significant, and, in any event, the Commission is largely constrained by the fact that the Act mandates those burdens.
Nonetheless, the Commission has indicated above that the Rule permits some limitation on prescription release and verification by prescribers. Moreover, in time, as prescribers and sellers gain experience and efficiency in the verification process, the Commission expects that the burdens imposed on small businesses will decrease. Accordingly, the Commission confirms its initial certification of no effect.
Advertising, Medical devices, Ophthalmic goods and services, Trade practices.
Pub. L. 108-164, secs. 1-12; 117 Stat. 2024 (15 U.S.C. 7601-7610).
This part, which shall be called the “Contact Lens Rule,” implements the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. 7601-7610, which requires that rules be issued to address the release, verification, and sale of contact lens prescriptions. This part specifically governs contact lens prescriptions and related issues. Part 456 of Title 16 governs the availability of eyeglass prescriptions and related issues (the Ophthalmic Practice Rules (Eyeglass Rule)).
For purposes of this part, the following definitions shall apply:
“Eight (8) business hours” shall be calculated from the time the prescriber receives the prescription verification information from the seller, and shall conclude when eight (8) business hours have elapsed. For verification requests received by a prescriber during non-business hours, the calculation of “eight (8) business hours” shall begin at 9 a.m. on the next weekday that is not a Federal holiday or, if applicable, on Saturday at the beginning of the prescriber's actual business hours.
(1) An examination to determine lens specifications;
(2) Except in the case of a renewal of a contact lens prescription, an initial evaluation of the fit of the contact lens on the eye; and
(3) Medically necessary follow-up examinations.
(1) The name of the patient;
(2) The date of examination;
(3) The issue date and expiration date of prescription;
(4) The name, postal address, telephone number, and facsimile telephone number of prescriber;
(5) The power, material or manufacturer or both of the prescribed contact lens;
(6) The base curve or appropriate designation of the prescribed contact lens;
(7) The diameter, when appropriate, of the prescribed contact lens; and
(8) In the case of a private label contact lens, the name of the manufacturer, trade name of the private label brand, and, if applicable, trade name of equivalent brand name.
(a)
(1) Whether or not requested by the patient, shall provide to the patient a copy of the contact lens prescription; and
(2) Shall, as directed by any person designated to act on behalf of the patient, provide or verify the contact lens prescription by electronic or other means.
(b)
(1) Require the purchase of contact lenses from the prescriber or from another person as a condition of providing a copy of a prescription under paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section or as a condition of verification of a prescription under paragraph (a)(2) of this section;
(2) Require payment in addition to, or as part of, the fee for an eye examination, fitting, and evaluation as a condition of providing a copy of a prescription under paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section or as a condition of verification of a prescription under paragraph (a)(2) of this section; or
(3) Require the patient to sign a waiver or release as a condition of releasing or verifying a prescription under paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section.
A prescriber may require payment of fees for an eye examination, fitting, and evaluation before the release of a contact lens prescription, but only if the prescriber requires immediate payment in the case of an examination that reveals no requirement for ophthalmic goods. For purposes of the preceding sentence, presentation of proof of insurance coverage for that service shall be deemed to be a payment.
(a)
(1) Presented to the seller by the patient or prescriber directly or by facsimile; or
(2) Verified by direct communication.
(b)
(1) The patient's full name and address;
(2) The contact lens power, manufacturer, base curve or appropriate designation, and diameter when appropriate;
(3) The quantity of lenses ordered;
(4) The date of patient request;
(5) The date and time of verification request;
(6) The name of a contact person at the seller's company, including facsimile and telephone numbers; and
(7) If the seller opts to include the prescriber's regular business hours on Saturdays as “business hours” for purposes of paragraph (c)(3) of this section, a clear statement of the prescriber's regular Saturday business hours.
(c)
(1) The prescriber confirms the prescription is accurate by direct communication with the seller;
(2) The prescriber informs the seller through direct communication that the prescription is inaccurate and provides the accurate prescription; or
(3) The prescriber fails to communicate with the seller within eight (8) business hours after receiving from the seller the information described in paragraph (b) of this section. During these eight (8) business hours, the seller shall provide a reasonable opportunity for the prescriber to communicate with the seller concerning the verification request.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) For prescriptions presented to the seller: the prescription itself, or the facsimile version thereof (including an email containing a digital image of the prescription), that was presented to the seller by the patient or prescriber.
(2) For verification requests by the seller:
(i) If the communication occurs via facsimile or e-mail, a copy of the verification request, including the information provided to the prescriber pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, and confirmation of the completed transmission thereof, including a record of the date and time the request was made;
(ii) If the communication occurs via telephone, a log:
(A) Describing the information provided pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section,
(B) Setting forth the date and time the request was made,
(C) Indicating how the call was completed, and
(D) Listing the names of the individuals who participated in the call.
(3) For communications from the prescriber, including prescription verifications:
(i) If the communication occurs via facsimile or e-mail, a copy of the communication and a record of the time and date it was received;
(ii) If the communication occurs via telephone, a log describing the information communicated, the date and time that the information was received, and the names of the individuals who participated in the call.
(4) The records required to be maintained under this section shall be maintained for a period of not less than three years, and these records must be available for inspection by the Federal Trade Commission, its employees, and its representatives.
(g)
(a)
(1) On the date specified by the law of the State in which the prescription was written, if that date is one year or more after the issue date of the prescription;
(2) Not less than one year after the issue date of the prescription if such State law specifies no date or specifies a date that is less than one year after the issue date of the prescription; or
(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, on the date specified by the prescriber, if that date is based on the medical judgment of the prescriber with respect to the ocular health of the patient.
(b)
(1) If a prescription expires in less than one year, the specific reasons for the medical judgment referred to in paragraph (a)(3) of this section shall be documented in the patient's medical record with sufficient detail to allow for review by a qualified professional in the field.
(2) The documentation described in the paragraph above shall be maintained for a period of not less than three years, and it must be available for inspection by the Federal Trade Commission, its employees, and its representatives.
(3) No prescriber shall include an expiration date on a prescription that is less than the period of time that he or she recommends for a reexamination of the patient that is medically necessary.
Any person who engages in the manufacture, processing, assembly, sale, offering for sale, or distribution of contact lenses may not represent, by advertisement, sales presentation, or otherwise, that contact lenses may be obtained without a prescription.
A prescriber may not place on a prescription, or require the patient to sign, or deliver to the patient, a form or notice waiving or disclaiming the liability or responsibility of the prescriber for the accuracy of the eye examination. The preceding sentence does not impose liability on a prescriber for the ophthalmic goods and services dispensed by another seller pursuant to the prescriber's correctly verified prescription.
Any violation of this Rule shall be treated as a violation of a rule under section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and the Commission will enforce this Rule in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as are available to it pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 41
The provisions of this part are separate and severable from one another. If any provision is stayed or determined to be invalid, it is the Commission's intention that the remaining provisions shall continue in effect.
(a) State and local laws and regulations that establish a prescription expiration date of less than one year or that restrict prescription release or require active verification are preempted.
(b) Any other State or local laws or regulations that are inconsistent with the Act or this part are preempted to the extent of the inconsistency.
15 U.S.C. 57a; 5 U.S.C. 552.
Rules applicable to prescriptions for contact lenses and related issues may be found at 16 CFR part 315 (Contact Lens Rule).
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Proposed rule.
The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement Section 210 of the E-Government Act of 2002. Section 210 authorizes Governmentwide use of Share-in-Savings (SIS) contracts for information technology (IT). SIS contracts offer an innovative approach for encouraging industry to share creative technology solutions with the Government. Through a properly structured SIS contract, agencies may lower costs and improve service delivery without large “up front” investments by having the contractor provide the technology investment and allowing the contractor to share with the government in the savings achieved.
Interested parties should submit comments in writing on or before August 31, 2004 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.
Submit comments identified by FAR case 2003-008 by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Agency Web Site:
• E-mail:
• Fax: 202-501-4067.
• Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVA), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, ATTN: Laurie Duarte, Washington, DC 20405.
Please submit comments only and cite FAR case 2003-008 in all correspondence related to this case.
For general information, contact the FAR Secretariat, Room 4037, GS Building, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-4755. For clarification of content, contact Craig Goral, Program Analyst, at 202-501-3856, or by e-mail at
Section 210 of the E-Government Act amends the Armed Services Procurement Act and the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act to address the use of SIS contracts for IT. Share-in-Savings is an innovative, performance-based concept that is intended to help an agency leverage its limited resources to improve or accelerate mission-related or administrative processes to meet strategic goals and objectives and lower costs for the taxpayer. Under an SIS contract, the contractor finances the work and then shares with the agency in the savings generated from contract performance. In general, agencies would agree to pay the contractor for services performed only if savings are realized and, in such cases, only a portion of the total savings realized.
Section 210, which sunsets at the end of 2005, authorizes an agency that awards an SIS contract for IT to retain its share of the savings, with certain exceptions. As a general rule, agencies would be required to ensure that funds are available and sufficient to make payments with respect to the first fiscal year of the contract and cover termination or cancellation costs. However, section 210 authorizes award of up to ten contracts (i.e., 5 among DOD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, and 5 among other agencies) during fiscal years 2004, and 2005 when funds are not made specifically available for the full costs of cancellation or termination of the contract—provided that the amount of unfunded contingent liability associated with cancellation and termination does not exceed the lesser of (1) 25 percent of the estimated costs of a cancellation or termination; or (2) $5 million. In signing the E-Government Act into law, the President stated that the executive branch shall “limit authorized waivers for funding of potential termination costs to appropriate circumstances, so as to minimize the financial risk to the government” and ensure SIS contracts are operated according to sound fiscal policy. Finally, SIS contracts entered into under section 210 are generally to be limited to a performance period not greater than 5 years, but may, under certain circumstances, and with appropriate approvals, be awarded for a period of up to 10 years.
On October 1, 2003, the Councils issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit input for amendments to the FAR that would motivate contractors and successfully capture the benefits of SIS contracting. The ANPR included draft amendments reflecting the Councils' preliminary thinking. The Councils have used the draft amendments in the ANPR as a baseline for this rulemaking. Based on responses to the ANPR, however, the draft amendments have been revised to—
• Emphasize the need for an open and collaborative environment, both among interested stakeholders within government (e.g., program, budget, finance, and legal offices) and between Government and industry to facilitate due diligence and mitigate risk;
• Provide additional guidance to help agencies develop business cases to justify the use of SIS, including definitions of “benefit pool,” “current baseline,” and “projected baseline,” and elements for successful analysis;
• Specify options for seeking competition;
• Describe considerations that may establish best value in the context of SIS contracting; and
• Assist contracting officers in determining what clauses need to be included in SIS contracts.
One commenter urged that the final FAR implementation make clear that some of the basic elements of SIS contracting are not dependent on the express authority provided by section 210 and therefore do not expire when section 210 sunsets. The Councils continue to evaluate whether certain guidance, presently proposed for FAR Subpart 39.3, should be addressed in other FAR parts.
The Councils welcome further public comment for consideration in finalizing this proposed rule and potentially for distributing to agencies for their use in preparing related guidance. The public is still encouraged to comment on the same nine areas identified in the ANPR (see the
This is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, is subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
The Councils do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed changes to the FAR do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR parts 16 and 39 as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 16 and 39 is revised to read as follows:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).
2. Amend section 16.401 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
(e) For related incentive concepts, refer to Subpart 39.3, Share-in-Savings Contracting, and 23.204, Energy-savings performance contracts.
3. Add subpart 39.3, consisting of sections 39.300 through 39.309, to read as follows:
This subpart implements Section 210 of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-347) by prescribing policies and procedures for Share-in-Savings contracts for information technology.
As used in this subpart—
(1) Notifies the contractor of nonavailability of funds for contract performance for any subsequent program year; or
(2) Fails to notify the contractor that funds are available for performance of the succeeding program year requirement.
(1) Monetary savings to an agency; or
(2) Savings in time or other quantifiable benefits realized by the agency, including enhanced revenues (other than enhanced revenues from the collection of fees, taxes, debts, claims, or other amounts owed the Federal Government).
(1) A contractor provides solutions for improving the agency's mission-related or administrative processes or for accelerating the achievement of agency missions; and
(2) The Government pays the contractor an amount equal to a portion of the quantifiable savings derived by the agency from—
(i) Any improvements in mission-related or administrative processes that result from implementation of the solution; or
(ii) Acceleration of achievement of agency missions.
The E-Government Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-347) authorizes the head of an agency to enter into a Share-in-Savings contract for information technology. The authority under this Act expires on September 30, 2005.
This subpart applies only to information technology projects that are appropriate for Share-in-Savings contracting techniques.
(a) In general, use of Share-in-Savings contracts should be considered—
(1) For projects involving significant innovation or process transformation;
(2) When there is senior level management support within the agency; and
(3) When there is acknowledgment that the contractor(s) will bear an unusual risk and an open and collaborative environment during the entire acquisition cycle is required to help mitigate that risk.
(b) Use of the share-in savings contract technique does not exempt agencies from the requirements for acquisition planning (see Subpart 7.1), and an information technology acquisition strategy (see 39.101(b)).
(c) Share-in-Savings contracts that are considered to be major IT acquisitions in accordance with OMB Circular A-11, section 53.2, are subject to the requirements of OMB Circular A-11, Part 7, “Planning, Budgeting, Acquisitions and Management of Capital Assets.”
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a Share-in-Savings contract shall be awarded for a period of not more than five years.
(b) A Share-in-Savings contract may be awarded for a period greater than five years, but not more than 10 years, if other applicable requirements do not otherwise limit the length of the contract and the head of the agency determines in writing prior to award of the contract that—
(1) The level of risk to be assumed and the investment to be undertaken by the contractor is likely to inhibit the Government from obtaining the needed information technology competitively at a fair and reasonable price if the contract is limited in duration to a period of five years or less; and
(2) Use of the information technology to be acquired is likely to continue for a period of time sufficient to generate reasonable benefit for the Government.
Agencies are strongly encouraged to form an IPT comprised of program, acquisition, budget, finance, information technology, and legal representatives.
(a) Agencies intending to use this subpart shall develop a business case. Agencies are strongly encouraged to complete the “Share-in Savings Business Case Decision Tool” at:
(b) The business case should minimally include a preliminary baseline analysis using the applicable elements established in paragraph (c) of this subsection. The baseline must be quantifiable since it will be the basis upon which a benefit pool is established to govern the share ratio and the amount of payment a contractor is to receive under a contract.
(c) The basic elements of the current and projected baselines are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this subsection and cover estimated costs for the expected period of the Share-in-Savings contract.
(1) The estimated value of all contracts the Government would have awarded for procurement, management, maintenance, administration, and operation of the program; and
(2) The costs associated with the Government personnel assigned to the project.
(d) There must be a net difference between the
Share-in-Savings contracts shall be performance-based contracts. (See Subpart 37.6.)
(a) Solicitations for Share-in-Savings contracts shall adhere to the competition requirements of Part 6. Contracting officers may use any appropriate competitive procedures authorized by the FAR, including 8.404, “Using schedules,” and 15.202, “Advisory multi-step process”. Each solicitation shall include provisions and evaluation criteria ensuring that—
(1) The contractor's share of savings reflects the risks involved and market conditions; and
(2) The Government will realize best value from the contract including reasonable savings.
(b) When developing proposal evaluation criteria, agencies may consider the contractor Proposal Evaluation Model located at
Award shall be made on a best value basis upon consideration of technical factors, price related factors such as highest life cycle return on investment to the Government, as well as other factors such as highest overall net present value return to both the Government and the contractor.
(a) Agencies may retain savings in excess of the total amount of savings paid to the contractor under the contract, but may not retain any portion of such savings that is attributable to a decrease in the number of civilian employees of the Federal Government performing the function.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, savings shall be credited to the appropriation or fund against which charges were made to carry out the contract and shall be used for information technology.
(c) Amounts retained by the agency under this subpart shall—
(1) Without further appropriation, remain available until expended; and
(2) Be applied first to fund any cancellation or termination liabilities associated with Share-in-Savings procurements that are not fully funded.
(a) The amount payable in the event of cancellation or termination of a Share-in-Savings contract shall be negotiated with the contractor at the time of contract award.
(b) If funds are not made available for the continuation of a Share-in-Savings contract in a subsequent fiscal year, the contract shall be cancelled or terminated. The costs of cancellation or termination may be paid out of—
(1) Appropriations available for the performance of the contract;
(2) Appropriations available for acquisition of the information technology procured under the contract, and not otherwise obligated; or
(3) Funds subsequently appropriated for payments of costs of cancellation or termination, subject to the limitations in 39.307-2.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the funds obligated for Share-in-Savings contracts must be sufficient to cover any potential cancellation and/or termination costs.
(b)(1) The head of an agency may enter into Share-in-Savings contracts even if funds are not made specifically available for the full costs of cancellation or termination of the contract provided that—
(i) The action is approved as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this subsection;
(ii) Funds are available and sufficient to make payments with respect to the first fiscal year of the contract; and
(iii) The following conditions are met regarding the funding of cancellation and termination liability:
(A) The amount of unfunded liability does not exceed the lesser of 25 percent
(B) An unfunded cancellation or termination liability in excess of $1,000,000 has been approved by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
(C) Notification has been provided to OMB in accordance with paragraph (c) of this subsection.
(2) The aggregate number of Share-in-Savings contracts that may be entered into under this paragraph may not exceed 5 in each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005 for each of the following groups of agencies:
(i) The Department of Defense, NASA, and the Coast Guard.
(ii) All other agencies.
(c) In addition to the requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this subsection, an agency planning to award a Share-in-Savings contract having an unfunded cancellation or termination liability in any amount must notify the Office of Management and Budget at least 30 days prior to solicitation issuance.
For the purposes of determining the clauses to be included in the contract, the contracting officer shall—
(a) Assume the contract type is “firm fixed price”; and
(b) Use the maximum cancellation amount as the contract value.
(a)(1) Share-in-Savings contracts shall include a clause containing a quantifiable baseline that is to be the basis upon which a saving share ratio is established to govern the amount of payment a contractor is to receive under a contract.
(2) Before award of a Share-in-Savings contract, the agency senior procurement executive shall determine in writing that the terms of the baseline clause are quantifiable and will likely yield value to the Government.
(b) Contracting officers shall include a cancellation clause tailored to the specifics of the Share-in-Savings contract that describes, at a minimum, the cancellation amounts, the basis for those amounts, and the periods during which the Government may cancel the contract. The clause shall contain the amount that the Contractor and Government have agreed will be the maximum amount of Government liability under the contract in the event of cancellation.
(c) Contracting officers may use a termination for convenience clause other than one prescribed in 49.502 if the prescribed clauses do not adequately address the specifics of the Share-in-Savings contract. The clause shall contain the amount that the contractor and Government have agreed will be the maximum amount of Government liability under the contract in the event of termination for convenience.
(d) Contracting officers should consider the use of a technology refreshment clause to ensure the information technology provided under the contract incorporates desired technological advancements throughout the entire period of contract performance. In developing such a clause, contracting officers should consider similar terms and conditions available on the commercial market.
(e) Contracting officers may include other appropriate clauses not specifically prescribed in this Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR Chapter 1) to ensure that the goals of the Share-in-Savings contract are attained, provided that such clauses are consistent with applicable statutes and regulations.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA amends the regulations governing airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes in six areas: miscellaneous flight requirements; powerplant installations; the public address system; trim systems; protective breathing equipment (PBE); and design requirements for powerplant valves controlled from the flight deck. Adoption of these amendments eliminates the regulatory differences between the airworthiness standards of the U.S. and the Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) of Europe. Currently, airplane manufacturers must satisfy both the U.S. and European airworthiness requirements to certificate transport category airplanes in the U.S. and Europe. Because U.S. manufacturers of transport category airplanes already meet the more stringent requirements of the JAR, adoption of these amendments will not affect current industry design practices.
This amendment becomes effective August 2, 2004.
Dionne Krebs, FAA, Transport Standards Staff, ANM-110, Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056; telephone 425-227-2250; facsimile 425-227-1100, e-mail
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
(1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket Management System (DMS) Web page (
(2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking's Web page at
(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at
You can also request a copy from the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591 [(202) 267-9680]. Be sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within our jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and have a question regarding this document you may contact your local FAA official or the person listed under
This final rule responds to recommendations of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) submitted under the FAA's Fast Track Harmonization Program. It amends thirteen sections of the regulations governing airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes concerning: miscellaneous flight requirements; powerplant installations; the public address system; trim systems; protective breathing equipment (PBE); and design requirements for powerplant valves controlled from the flight deck. The FAA proposed these changes in five notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The notices and the affected sections are listed in the table below.
In these notices you will find a history of the problems and discussions of the safety considerations supporting this rule. You also will find a discussion of the current requirements and why they do not adequately address the problem. The NPRMs refer to the ARAC recommendations upon which we relied in developing the proposed rules. The NPRMs also discuss each alternative that we considered and the reasons for rejecting the ones we did not adopt.
The background material in the NPRMs contains the basis and rationale for this rule and, except where we have specifically expanded on the background elsewhere in this preamble, supports this final rule as if it were contained here. We refer inquiries regarding the intent of the requirements to the background in the NPRMs as though it was in the final rule itself. It is therefore not necessary to repeat the background in this document.
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 25 contains the airworthiness standards for type certification of transport category airplanes. These standards apply to airplanes manufactured within the U.S. for use by U.S. registered operators, and airplanes manufactured in other countries and imported to the U.S. under a bilateral agreement. Manufacturers of transport category airplanes must show that each airplane they produce of a different type design complies with the applicable part 25 standards.
Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR)-25 contains the European airworthiness standards for type certification of transport category airplanes. The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) of Europe developed these standards, which are based on part 25, to provide a common set of airworthiness standards within the European aviation community. Thirty-seven European countries accept airplanes type certificated to the JAR-25 standards, including airplanes manufactured in the U.S. that are type certificated to JAR-25 standards for export to Europe.
Although part 25 and JAR-25 are similar, they are not identical in every respect. When airplanes are type certificated to both sets of standards, the differences between part 25 and JAR-25 can result in substantial added costs to manufacturers and operators. These added costs, however, often do not bring about an increase in safety.
Recognizing that a common set of standards would not only benefit the aviation industry economically, but also preserve the necessary high level of safety, the FAA and the JAA began an effort in 1988 to “harmonize” their respective aviation standards.
After beginning the first steps toward harmonization, the FAA and JAA soon realized that traditional methods of rulemaking and accommodating different administrative procedures was insufficient to make noticeable progress toward fulfilling the harmonization goal. The FAA identified the ARAC as an ideal vehicle for helping to resolve harmonization issues, and in 1992 the FAA tasked ARAC to undertake the entire harmonization effort.
Despite the work that ARAC has undertaken to address harmonization, there remain a large number of regulatory differences between part 25 and JAR-25. The current harmonization process is costly and time-consuming for industry, the FAA, and the JAA. Industry has expressed a strong desire to complete the harmonization program as quickly as possible to alleviate the drain on their resources and finally to establish one acceptable set of standards.
Recently, representatives of the FAA and JAA proposed an accelerated process to reach harmonization, the “Fast Track Harmonization Program.” The FAA initiated the Fast Track Harmonization Program on November 26, 1999. This rulemaking has been identified as a “fast track” project.
Further details on ARAC, and its role in harmonization rulemaking activity, and the Fast Track Harmonization Program can be found in the tasking statement (64 FR 66522, November 26, 1999) and the first NPRM published under this program, Fire Protection Requirements for Powerplant Installations on Transport Category Airplanes (65 FR 36978, June 12, 2000).
The new European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) was established and formally came into being on September 28, 2003. The JAA worked with the European Commission (EC) to develop a plan to ensure a smooth transition from JAA to the EASA. As part of the transition, the EASA will absorb all functions and activities of the JAA, including its efforts to harmonize JAA regulations with those of the U.S. This rule is a result of the FAA and JAA harmonization rulemaking activities. It adopts the more stringent requirements of the JAR standards. These JAR standards have already been incorporated into the EASA “Certification Specifications for Large Aeroplanes” CS-25, in similar if not identical language. The EASA CS-25 became effective on October 17, 2003.
On January 14, 2002, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (Notice No. 02-01, 67 FR 1846) entitled “Miscellaneous Flight Requirements.” The NPRM proposed to amend five sections of 14 CFR part 25 regarding transport category airplanes miscellaneous flight requirements. The amendments harmonize these standards with the comparable JAR-25 standards. The affected sections are:
The FAA received one comment in response to the proposed rule. The commenter fully supports the proposal.
On November 26, 2002, the FAA published a final rule (67 FR 70812) entitled, “1-g Stall Speed as the Basis for Compliance With Part 25 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.” This final rule amended the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes to redefine the reference stall speed as a speed not less than the 1-g stall speed, instead of the minimum speed obtained in a stalling maneuver. The rule became effective December 26, 2002.
Included in the amendment were changes to operating speeds in § 25.161(c)(2), and § 25.175(d)(4), to reflect the redefinition of the reference stall speed, specifically:
The FAA adopts the changes as proposed in the NPRM, Notice No. 02-01, revised to reflect the reference stall speed adopted by the 1-g stall speed final rule.
On January 31, 2002, the FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice No. 02-02, 67 FR 4856) entitled, “Revisions to Various Powerplant Installation Requirements for Transport Category Airplanes.” The FAA proposed to amend four sections of 14 CFR part 25 regarding airworthiness standards for powerplant installations on transport category airplanes. The amendments will harmonize these standards with the comparable JAR-25 standards. The affected sections are:
Three commenters responded including a U.S. airplane manufacturer, a foreign airworthiness authority, and a U.S. industry association representing many groups in the aviation industry. The U.S. airplane manufacturer agreed with the proposed rule without further comment. The other two commenters disagreed with portions of the proposal and provided the following comments and recommendations for change.
• The engine power section;
• Except for reciprocating engines, any complete powerplant compartment in which no isolation is provided between the engine power section and the engine accessory section;
• The engine accessory section;
• The APU compartment;
• Any fuel burning heater (or combustion equipment described in § 25.859);
• The compressor and accessory sections of turbine engines; and
• The combustor, turbine and tailpipe sections of turbine engine installations that contain lines or components carrying flammable fluids.
The purpose of the proposal is not to change the applicability of § 25.863 but rather to make it clear that § 25.863, by its wording and nature, is applicable to any area subject to flammable fluid leakage, including DFZs. The requirements of § 25.863 are applicable to DFZs in addition to, not instead of, the requirements of §§ 25.1185 through 25.1203. Consequently, applying the requirements of § 25.863 to DFZs, especially the requirement for a “means to minimize the likelihood of ignition,” increases the level of safety. It is neither appropriate nor necessary to repeat this existing, generally applicable requirement in § 25.1185 as proposed by the commenter.
The FAA agrees with the commenter's statement, “a gradual implementation of fire protection measures should be commensurate with hazards.” The “minimization” nature of § 25.863 accomplishes this goal. For example, § 25.863 clearly requires more fire protection measures in a fire zone, measures similar to those of a DFZ, than in a flammable fluid leakage zone. The ARAC recently submitted recommended advisory material to the FAA that provides more detailed guidance regarding what “flammable fluid fire protection” is acceptable when demonstrating compliance with §§ 25.863 and 25.1187. The FAA is reviewing this proposed advisory material and may publish a Notice of Availability in the
The proposed revision, requiring a means to indicate to the flightcrew when the thrust reversing device is not in the selected position, is in addition to the current requirement to indicate when the device is in the reverse thrust position. The commenter does not object to the aspect of the proposed change requiring an indication when the stowed position is selected and the device is not stowed. This accounts for the situation where the device is not completely in the forward thrust position, but has not reached the reverse thrust position either.
This commenter does not find the proposed change requiring an indication that the thrust reverse device is not deployed, although the deployed position is selected, would result in the anticipated safety improvement (enhanced crew awareness). In fact, the commenter contends that such indication may result in a safety reduction because flightcrews are already familiar with existing means used to notify the flightcrew of the condition of the thrust reversing device.
The commenter further notes that many current airplanes include airplane flight manual (AFM) and training procedures specifying that the crew check the reverse thrust position indication to verify reverser deployment. These procedures are also backed-up with a mechanical means that prevents application of reverse thrust above idle until the reverser is deployed. By specifying the need for an additional requirement, the proposed rule change would not allow the use of this method currently used in many airplanes and familiar to flightcrews. This commenter finds there are some safety concerns related to the human factors interaction between the flightcrew and the provision for two different thrust reverser indications. A cockpit indication that the reverser has deployed when commanded and another that it has not deployed as commanded may lead to flightcrew confusion and the potential for inappropriate crew action or response. This is particularly the case when considering previous crew experience and training on similar airplanes that do not incorporate the new indication.
Therefore, this commenter recommends one of the following actions: Conduct human factor studies to evaluate the safety benefits of the proposed change. Revise the proposed change to require an indication only when the forward thrust position is selected and the device is not in the appropriate position.
The JAA further confirms that this requirement was added to provide more direct, continuous, and effective situational awareness than that
Conversely, the FAA and JAA have agreed the inherent “tactile feedback” provided by traditional reverser/throttle interlock features can be shown to meet the intent of this rule. That is, when the pilot is unable to command reverse thrust above idle, he is inherently and continuously aware when the reverser is not in the selected position.
On November 22, 2002, the FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice No. 02-18, 67 FR 70510) entitled, “Public Address System.” The FAA proposed to amend an airworthiness standard for the public address system on transport category airplanes to harmonize the standards with the comparable JAR-25 standards. This amendment requires that the public address system be capable of operation within 3-seconds from the time a microphone is removed from its stowage.
The FAA received four comments. All the commenters generally support the proposed changes. These comments include five suggested changes, as discussed below.
On October 2, 2002, the FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice No. 02-15, 67 FR 61836) entitled, “Trim Systems and Protective Breathing Equipment.” The FAA proposed to amend airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes concerning trim systems and protective breathing equipment (PBE). For trim systems, the proposal would establish the minimum design standard. For PBE, the proposal would define design and installation requirements for portable and stationary protective breathing equipment. These amendments would harmonize the airworthiness standards for trim systems and PBE with those of JAR-25.
The FAA received five comments in response to the proposal. One commenter supports the proposed rule without further comment. The other commenters generally support the proposed changes. These comments include four suggested changes, as discussed below.
“In addition, portable protective breathing equipment must be installed for the use of appropriate crewmembers for fighting fires in compartments accessible in flight other than the flight deck. This includes isolated * * *”
The commenter believes the additional text clearly specifies the last sentence of proposed § 25.1439(a), which requires protective breathing equipment (PBE) for the maximum number of occupants, does NOT apply to the flight deck. The FAA has previously interpreted this part of the rule as not applying to the flight deck. However, if taken literally, the proposed requirement could apply to the flight deck, thus requiring up to four PBE's on the flight deck; this clearly is not the intent of the rule.
“* * * If a continuous flow open circuit protective breathing system is used, a flow rate of * * * Continuous flow open circuit systems must not increase the ambient oxygen content of the local atmosphere above that of demand systems. If a closed circuit protective breathing system is used, compliance to the performance requirements stated in Technical Standard Order (TSO) C116 for 15 minutes is considered to satisfy the required 15-minute duration at the prescribed altitude and minute volume. BTPD refers to body temperature conditions (that is, 37° C., at ambient pressure, dry).”
This commenter contends that, historically, a larger supply of oxygen was considered necessary when an open circuit continuous flow oxygen mask was used, relative to a demand oxygen mask, because the continuous flow mask has no means to adjust for a momentary inhalation rate that exceeded the continuous flow rate. Accordingly, the continuous flow rate was set higher, so the flow would be sufficient in the event of a momentary excursion.
By contrast, in a closed circuit rebreather system, in principle, the rate at which oxygen must be supplied is not equal to the breathing rate. If the closed circuit device has sufficient reservoir capacity to accommodate the demand for added breathing volume during a momentary excursion, the actual oxygen flow rate required is only the quantity necessary to replace the oxygen that was consumed by metabolic activity or lost through leakage.
In the case of TSO C116 compliant PBE, the user's breathing rate may correspond to 30 liters per minute for 15 minutes or 450 liters BTPD, but the actual oxygen flow required might be only one to two liters per minute normal temperature pressure dry (NTPD). In a closed circuit rebreather, a 600 liter oxygen supply for 15 minutes duration would be equal to a metabolic demand of 40 liters per minute, which is well outside the range of human metabolic capacity, and thus excessive. To the best of the commenter's knowledge, none of the currently certificated TSO C116 compliant portable closed circuit PBE units would be capable of delivering 600 liters of oxygen, but all would readily accommodate a breathing rate of 30 liters per minute BTPD at 8,000 feet pressure altitude.
This commenter believes the proposed language could be interpreted as requiring a closed circuit portable PBE to have an oxygen supply much larger than is necessary.
We agree that the portion of the rule that specifies 600 liters of oxygen at 70 °F, and 760 mm. Hg., is only applicable to continuous flow open circuit protective breathing systems.
We do not agree that it is appropriate to reference the TSO C116 in the regulation. The TSO may change in the future and may not remain compatible with the part 25 regulations. Also, we do not agree that it is necessary to restrict the requirement to not increase the ambient oxygen content of the local atmosphere to only continuous flow open circuit systems. If a continuous flow system does not allow oxygen into the local atmosphere it would comply with the regulation.
“* * * If a continuous flow open circuit protective breathing system is used, a flow rate of 60 liters per minute * * *”
On May 8, 2002, the FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice No. 02-08, 67 FR 30820) entitled, “Powerplant Controls on Transport Category Airplanes, General.” The FAA proposed to amend airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes concerning design requirements for powerplant valves controlled from the flight deck. The proposed rule would clarify the requirements for a means to select the intended position of the valve, to indicate the selected position, and to indicate if the valve has not attained the selected position. These amendments would harmonize the airworthiness standards for trim systems and PBE with those of JAR-25.
One commenter, a U.S. airplane manufacturer, responded to the proposed rule. The commenter includes two suggested changes, discussed below.
(f) For powerplant valve controls located in the flight deck there must be a means for the flightcrew to select each intended position or function of the valve; and to indicate to the flightcrew: the selected position or function of the valve; and, when the valve has not responded as intended to the selected position or function.
Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal agency to propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531-2533) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Agreements Act also requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, use them as the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation).
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final rule:
1. Has benefits that do justify its costs, is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures;
2. Will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
3. Will not reduce barriers to international trade; and
4. Does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. These analyses, available in the docket, are summarized below.
The (DOT) Order 2100.5, “Regulatory Policies and Procedures,” prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If it is determined that the expected impact is so minimal that the rule does not warrant a full evaluation, a statement to that effect and the basis for it is included in the regulation. We provide the basis for this minimal impact determination below. We received no comments that conflicted with the economic assessment of minimal impact published in the notices of proposed rulemaking for this action. Given the reasons presented below, and the fact that no comments were received to the contrary, we have determined that the expected impact of this rule is so minimal that the final rule does not warrant a full evaluation.
Currently, airplane manufacturers must satisfy both the 14 CFR and the European JAR requirements to certificate transport category airplanes in both the United States and Europe. Meeting two sets of certification requirements raises the cost of developing a new transport category airplane, often with no increase in safety. In the interest of fostering international trade, lowering the cost of aircraft development, and making the certification process more efficient, the FAA, JAA, and aircraft manufacturers have been working to create a single set of certification requirements accepted in both the United States and Europe. These efforts are referred to as harmonization. This final rule results from the FAA's acceptance of ARAC harmonization working group recommendations. Members of the ARAC working groups agreed that the requirements of this rule will not impose additional costs to U.S. manufacturers of part 25 airplanes.
Specifically, this rule requires:
1. Revising §§ 25.111, 25.147, 25.161, and 25.175 to incorporate the more stringent requirements currently in those same sections of JAR-25;
2. Revising §§ 25.945, 25.973, 25.1181, and 25.1305 to meet the more stringent requirements of the parallel JAR;
3. Revising § 25.1423 to require that the public address system must be capable of operation within 3-seconds from the time a microphone is removed from its stowage;
4. Revising § 25.677 and 25.1439 to establish the minimum design standard for trim systems, to define design and installation requirements for portable and stationary protective breathing equipment, to eliminate the regulatory differences between the airworthiness standards of the U.S. and the Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) of Europe; and,
5. Revising § 25.1141 to clarify the requirements for a means to select the intended position of the valve, and to indicate if the valve has not attained the selected position, for powerplant valves controlled from the flight deck.
Because this rule will not reduce or increase the requirements beyond those already met by U.S. manufacturers to satisfy European airworthiness standards, we have determined there will be no cost associated with this rule to part 25 manufacturers. We have not tried to quantify the benefits of this amendment beyond identifying the expected harmonization benefit. This amendment eliminates an identified significant regulatory difference (SRD) between part 25 and JAR-25 wording. Eliminating the SRD will provide for a more consistent interpretation of the rules and thus is an element of the potentially large cost savings of harmonization.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) directs the FAA to fit regulatory requirements to the scale of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to the regulation. We are required to determine whether a proposed or final action will have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” as they are defined in the Act.
If we find that the action will have a significant impact, we must do a “regulatory flexibility analysis.” If, however, we find that the action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we are not required to do the analysis. In this case, the Act requires that we include a statement that provides the factual basis for our determination.
We have determined that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for two reasons:
First, the net effect of the rule is regulatory cost relief. The amendment requires that new transport category airplane manufacturers meet just the “more stringent” European certification requirement, rather than both the United States and European standards. Airplane manufacturers already meet this standard, as well as the existing part 25 requirement.
Second, all United States manufacturers of transport category airplanes exceed the Small Business Administration small entity criteria of 1,500 employees for airplane manufacturers. Those U.S. manufacturers include: The Boeing Company, Cessna Aircraft Company, Gulfstream Aerospace, Learjet (owned by Bombardier Aerospace), Lockheed Martin Corporation, McDonnell Douglas (a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company), Raytheon Aircraft, and Sabreliner Corporation.
The FAA received no comments that differed with the assessment given in this section. Since this final rule is minimally cost-relieving and there are no small entity manufacturers of part 25 airplanes, the FAA Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this rulemaking and has determined that it is consistent with the statute's requirements by using European international standards as the basis for U.S. standards and supports the Administration's policy on free trade.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.”
This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements of Title II of the Act, therefore, do not apply.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, there are no current or new requirements for information collection associated with this final rule.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these regulations.
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and therefore does not have federalism implications.
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in Title 14 of the CFR in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation, and to establish such regulatory distinctions as he or she considers appropriate. Because this final rule applies to the certification of future designs of transport category airplanes and their subsequent operation, it could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Because no comments were received regarding this regulation affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, we will apply the rule in the same way that it is being applied nationally.
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993) requires each agency to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make these regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
• Are the requirements clearly stated?
• Do the regulations contain unnecessary technical language or jargon that interferes with their clarity?
• Would the regulations be easier to understand if they were divided into more (but shorter) sections?
• Is the description in the preamble helpful in understanding the regulations?
Please send your comments to the address specified in the
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has analyzed this rulemaking under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and 44704.
(c)* * *
(4) Except for gear retraction and automatic propeller feathering, the airplane configuration may not be changed, and no change in power or thrust that requires action by the pilot may be made, until the airplane is 400 feet above the takeoff surface.
(d) Lateral control; roll capability. With the critical engine inoperative, roll response must allow normal maneuvers. Lateral control must be sufficient, at the speeds likely to be used with one engine inoperative, to provide a roll rate necessary for safety without excessive control forces or travel.
(c) * * *
(2) Either a glide with power off at a speed not more than 1.3 V
(e) Airplanes with four or more engines. Each airplane with four or more engines must also maintain trim in rectilinear flight with the most unfavorable center of gravity and at the climb speed, configuration, and power required by § 25.123(a) for the purpose of establishing the en route flight paths with two engines inoperative.
(d) * * *
(4) The airplane trimmed at 1.3 V
(i) Power or thrust off, and
(ii) Power or thrust for level flight.
(b) There must be means adjacent to the trim control to indicate the direction of the control movement relative to the airplane motion. In addition, there must be clearly visible means to indicate the position of the trim device with respect to the range of adjustment. The indicator must be clearly marked with the range within which it has been demonstrated that takeoff is safe for all center of gravity positions approved for takeoff.
(b) * * *
(5) Each tank must have an expansion space of not less than 2 percent of the tank capacity. It must be impossible to fill the expansion space inadvertently with the airplane in the normal ground attitude.
Each fuel tank filler connection must prevent the entrance of fuel into any part of the airplane other than the tank itself. In addition—
(d) Each fuel filling point must have a provision for electrically bonding the airplane to ground fueling equipment.
(f) For powerplant valve controls located in the flight deck there must be a means:
(1) For the flightcrew to select each intended position or function of the valve; and
(2) To indicate to the flightcrew:
(i) The selected position or function of the valve; and
(ii) When the valve has not responded as intended to the selected position or function.
(b) Each designated fire zone must meet the requirements of §§ 25.863, 25.865, 25.867, 25.869, and 25.1185 through 25.1203.
The following are required powerplant instruments:
(a) * * *
(7) Fire-warning devices that provide visual and audible warning.
(d) * * *
(2) A position indicating means to indicate to the flightcrew when the thrust reversing device—
(i) Is not in the selected position, and
(ii) Is in the reverse thrust position, for each engine using a thrust reversing device.
A public address system required by this chapter must—
(b) Be capable of operation within 3 seconds from the time a microphone is removed from its stowage.
(a) Fixed (stationary, or built in) protective breathing equipment must be installed for the use of the flightcrew, and at least one portable protective breathing equipment shall be located at or near the flight deck for use by a flight crewmember. In addition, portable protective breathing equipment must be installed for the use of appropriate crewmembers for fighting fires in compartments accessible in flight other than the flight deck. This includes isolated compartments and upper and lower lobe galleys, in which crewmember occupancy is permitted during flight. Equipment must be installed for the maximum number of crewmembers expected to be in the area during any operation.
(b) For protective breathing equipment required by paragraph (a) of this section or by the applicable Operating Regulations:
(1) The equipment must be designed to protect the appropriate crewmember from smoke, carbon dioxide, and other harmful gases while on flight deck duty or while combating fires.
(2) The equipment must include—
(i) Masks covering the eyes, nose and mouth, or
(ii) Masks covering the nose and mouth, plus accessory equipment to cover the eyes.
(3) Equipment, including portable equipment, must allow communication with other crewmembers while in use. Equipment available at flightcrew assigned duty stations must also enable the flightcrew to use radio equipment.
(4) The part of the equipment protecting the eyes shall not cause any appreciable adverse effect on vision and must allow corrective glasses to be worn.
(5) The equipment must supply protective oxygen of 15 minutes duration per crewmember at a pressure altitude of 8,000 feet with a respiratory minute volume of 30 liters per minute BTPD. The equipment and system must be designed to prevent any inward leakage to the inside of the device and prevent any outward leakage causing significant increase in the oxygen content of the local ambient atmosphere. If a demand oxygen system is used, a supply of 300 liters of free oxygen at 70° F. and 760 mm. Hg. pressure is considered to be of 15-minute duration at the prescribed altitude and minute volume. If a continuous flow open circuit protective breathing system is used, a flow rate of 60 liters per minute at 8,000 feet (45 liters per minute at sea level) and a supply of 600 liters of free oxygen at 70° F. and 760 mm. Hg. pressure is considered to be of 15-minute duration at the prescribed altitude and minute volume. Continuous flow systems must not increase the ambient oxygen content of the local atmosphere above that of demand systems. BTPD refers to body temperature conditions (that is, 37° C., at ambient pressure, dry).
(6) The equipment must meet the requirements of § 25.1441.