Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Foreign Agricultural Service
Forest Service
Census Bureau
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Land Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Parole Commission
Employment and Training Administration
Veterans Employment and Training Service
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Federal Aviation Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Final rule; Technical amendments.
This final rule makes technical amendments to the regulation implementing the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers (TAA) program.
Effective on November 1, 2004.
Jean-Louis Pajot, Import Policies and Programs Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 1021, by e-mail at:
The regulation implementing the TAA program is codified at 7 CFR part 1580. The program is authorized by Chapter 6 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by Subtitle C of Title I of the Trade Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-210) (19 U.S.C. 2551,
This regulation makes the following five technical corrections to 7 CFR Part 1580:
The first correction specifies the documentation required to certify the net farm income of agricultural cooperatives, partnerships and corporations. These entities are eligible to apply for TAA because § 1580.102 defines a “producer” as a person who is either an owner, operator, landlord, tenant, or sharecropper, who shares in the risk of producing a crop and who is entitled to share in the crop available for marketing from the farm, or a qualified fisherman, and the same section defines a “person” to mean an individual, partnership, joint stock owner, corporation, association, trust, estate, or another legal entity as defined in 7 CFR 1400.3. The current regulation, however, only specifies documentation for certifying the net farm income of self-employed farmers,
The second change corrects an inconsistency in identifying the relevant tax year to be used when producers certify to lower net farm or fishing incomes. Producers petition for TAA with respect to the most recent marketing year for which national average prices are available. Section 1580.102 defines net farm and fishing income as income earned during the tax year that most closely corresponds with the marketing year being considered for TAA. To be eligible for payments, producers must certify under § 1580.301(e)(4) that their net farm or fishing income for the most recent tax year was less than that during their pre-adjustment year. Because national average prices take months to be gathered and published by the Department, a producer's most recent tax year may follow the tax year that most closely corresponds with the marketing year being considered for TAA. Therefore, to correct this deficiency, § 1580.301(e)(4) is amended to delete reference to “the most recent tax year”. Consequently producers are required to certify that net farm or fishing income during the tax year that most closely corresponds with the marketing year under consideration was less than that during their pre-adjustment tax year, in order to receive payments.
The third change authorizes the use of alternative procedures for producers to certify to their adjusted gross income (AGI) authorized by section 296 (a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) of the Trade Act. Section 1580.301(e)(6) describes the documentation that a producer shall provide to support certification that their AGI, as determined in accordance with 7 CFR 1400.601, for the 3 preceding tax years does not exceed $2,500,000. Section 1580.301(e) is therefore amended to allow producers to certify their AGI limitation by either providing specified documentation or by providing other information prescribed by the Department. This amendment will permit FAS to conform the TAA procedures to those adopted by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) regarding certification of AGI. Producers will still be obligated to provide specific documents supporting their AGI, when requested by the Department.
The fourth correction concerns the deadline by which applicants must provide certifications to qualify for adjustment assistance payments. Under § 1580.301(c) producers must submit documentation to support the amount of their production when submitting an application for TAA. The purpose of this requirement is twofold. First, it assures that only verifiable producers of the commodity are referred to the Extension Service for free technical assistance and services; and second, it establishes a fiscal obligation for each applicant, upon which the Department builds its estimate of program expenditures and calculates prorated payments, when appropriated funds are insufficient. Section 1580.303(a) requires applicants to satisfy by September 30 all the conditions of § 1580.301 to qualify for TAA payments. This statement could be misinterpreted to mean that producers have until September 30, to provide documentation supporting the amount of their production. Therefore, § 1580.303(a) is amended to clarify that the September 30 deadline applies only to the certifications under § 1580.301(e).
The fifth correction concerns the appeals procedure under § 1580.505. The regulation designated the FSA administrative appeal procedure to resolve disputes involving applications for program benefits. This has led to some confusion that entities applying for TAA benefits could appeal denials to the National Appeals Division (NAD) within USDA. This was not intended, and would not be appropriate, because appeals from NAD go to the United States District Courts, whereas the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2395) grants to the
19 U.S.C. 2401.
Net farm income means net farm profit or loss, excluding payments under this part, reported to the Internal Revenue Service for the tax year that most closely corresponds with the marketing year under consideration.
Net fishing income means net profit or loss, excluding payments under this part, reported to the Internal Revenue Service for the tax year that most closely corresponds with the marketing year under consideration.
Qualified fisherman means a person whose catch competes in the marketplace with like or directly competitive aquaculture products and report net fishing income to the Internal Revenue Service.
(e) * * *
(4) Certification that net farm or fishing income was less than that during the producer's pre-adjustment year.
(6) To comply with certifications in paragraph (e)(4) of this section, an applicant shall provide either—
(7) To comply with certifications in paragraph (e)(5) of this section, an applicant shall provide either—
(i) Supporting documentation from a certified public accountant or attorney,
(ii) Relevant documentation and other supporting financial data, such as financial statements, balance sheets, and reports prepared for or provided to the Internal Revenue Service or another U.S. Government agency, or
(iii) Information prescribed by the Department.
(a) Applicants shall satisfy by September 30 all certifications of § 1580.301(e) to qualify for adjustment assistance payments.
(a) The application process shall be carried out in the field by FSA county committees.
(b) FSA county committees and representatives do not have the authority to modify or waive any of the provisions of this part.
(c) The Administrator, may, by timely and appropriate public notification, modify non-statutory opening dates and deadlines for submitting petitions.
(d) The Administrator may authorize the FSA county committees to waive or modify non-statutory application deadlines or other program requirements in cases where lateness or failure to meet such other requirements by applicants does not adversely affect the operation of the program.
(a) * * *
(1) Acceptable production documentation may include copies of receipts, ledgers, income statements, deposit slips, register tapes, invoices for custom harvesting, records to verify production costs, contemporaneous measurements, truck scale tickets, fish tickets, landing reports, and contemporaneous diaries that are determined acceptable by the county committee.
(2) Acceptable income documentation shall include, as appropriate, copies of Internal Revenue Service Form 990-C, Farmers' Cooperative Association Income Tax Return; Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return; Schedule C (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Business; Schedule F (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Farming; Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income; Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return; or Form 4835, Farm Rental Income and Expenses.
(d) If requested in writing by the United States Department of Agriculture or the Comptroller General of the United States, the producer shall provide all information and documentation the reviewing authority determines necessary to verify any information or certification provided under this subpart, including all documents referred to in § 1580.301(c), within 30 days. Documentation may be submitted by facsimile, in person, or by mail. Failure to provide necessary and accurate information to verify compliance, or failure to comply with the subpart's requirements, will result in ineligibility for all program benefits subject to this subpart for the year or years subject to the request.
Any person aggrieved by a final determination made with respect to an application for program benefits under this part may appeal to the United States Court of International Trade for a review of such determination, in accordance with its rules and procedures.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective November 1, 2004. The compliance date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 1, 2004.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located;
3. The flight Inspection Area Office which originated the SIAP; or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located.
Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, and 8260-5. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment to part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP amendments may have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Data Center (NFDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (Air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
The FAA published an Amendment in Docket No. 30425, Amdt No. 3106 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (Vol 69, FR No. 199, Pages 61148; dated Friday, October 15, 2004) under Section 97.33 effective November 25, 2004 which is hereby reinstated and will be published effective November 25, 2004:
The FAA published an Amendment in Docket No. 30425, Amdt No. 3106 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (Vol 69, FR No. 199, Pages 61148; dated Friday, October 15, 2004) under Section 97.33 effective November 25, 2004 which is hereby rescinded in its entirety:
The FAA published an Amendment in Docket No. 30425, Amdt No. 3106 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (Vol 69, FR No. 199, page 61146; dated October 15, 2004) under section 97.33 effective 25 NOV 2004, which is hereby rescinded:
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Final rule; correction.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“Office”) published a final rule in the
Effective November 1, 2004.
Cheryl L. Black, Office of the Commissioner for Trademarks, by telephone at (703) 308-8910, ext. 153, or by e-mail to
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“Office”) published in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks.
Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks.
15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, unless otherwise noted.
(a) Trademark correspondence. In general. All trademark-related documents filed on paper, except documents sent to the Assignment Services Division for recordation; requests for copies of trademark documents; and certain documents filed under the Madrid Protocol as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, should be addressed to: Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451. All trademark-related documents may be delivered by hand, during the hours the Office is open to receive correspondence, to the Trademark Assistance Center, James Madison Building—East Wing, Concourse Level, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, unless otherwise noted.
(c) Hand-Delivered Correspondence. International applications under § 7.11, subsequent designations under § 7.21, responses to notices of irregularity under § 7.14, requests to record changes in the International Register under § 7.23 and § 7.24, requests for transformation under § 7.31, and petitions to the Director to review an action of the Office's Madrid Processing Unit, may be delivered by hand during the hours the Office is open to receive correspondence. Madrid-related hand-delivered correspondence must be delivered to the Trademark Assistance Center, James Madison Building—East Wing, Concourse Level, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, Attention: MPU.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is finalizing a full approval of some revisions to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) and a limited approval/limited disapproval of another revision to the SIP. This action was proposed in the
This rule is effective on December 1, 2004.
You can inspect copies of the administrative record for this action at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours by appointment. You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions by appointment at the following locations: Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., (Mail Code 6102T), Washington, DC 20460.
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 1110 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007.
A copy of the rules may also be available via the Internet at
Al Petersen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4118,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
The following table lists the rules addressed by this action, with the dates that they were adopted and submitted by the ADEQ.
On May 14, 2004 (69 FR 26786), EPA proposed a full approval of ADEQ's submitted Rules R18-2-715 (sections F, G, and H), R18-2-715.01, and R18-2-715.02 as fulfilling the requirements of RACT, SIP relaxations, and enforceability. On the same date, we proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule R18-2-appendix 8.
1. Sections A.8.1.2 and A.8.2 contain excessive Director's discretion by allowing the Director to approve an equivalent method to calculate the sulfur content without providing the criteria that will be used to determine approvability.
2. Sections A.8.1.2.1.1, A.8.1.2.1.2, and A.8.1.2.1.3 should clarify how a representative sample should be taken from belt feeders, railcars, and trucks so that the sampling process is not biased.
3. Sections A.8.1.2.3.1 and A.8.1.2.3.2 should provide specific test methods for the “barium sulfate” and “potassium iodide” procedures.
4. Section A.8.2.5.5 should provide a specific test method for “chemical gravimetric means.” Also the accuracy is stated as +50%, but it should be a ± number. The accuracy of a gravimetric procedure is normally about ±1%, not ±50%.
5. The reference in A8.3.1 should be changed from R18-2-715(C)(4) to R18-2-715.01(K)-(O). Also, the reference in A.8.3.2 should be changed from R18-2-715(C)(7)(v) to R18-2-715.01(Q).
Based on information received during the comment period of our proposed action, we no longer consider deficiency #2 or the second part of deficiency #4 above to be deficiencies in Rule R18-2-appendix 8.
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period ending on June 14, 2004. We received comments from the following parties:
Kenneth Evans, Arizona Mining Association (AMA); letter dated June 14, 2004 and received on June 14, 2004.
Nancy Wrona, ADEQ; letter dated June 11, 2004 and received on June 11, 2004.
The comments and our responses are summarized below.
Although some submitted comments led us to not finalize some deficiencies listed in the proposed action, the remaining deficiencies in Rule R-18-2-appendix 8 conflict with section 110 and part D of the CAA and prevent full approval of this rule. Therefore, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is finalizing a full approval of ADEQ's submitted Rules R18-2-715 (sections F, G, and H), R18-2-715.01, and R-18-2-715.02. We are also finalizing a limited approval of Rule R-18-2-appendix 8. This action
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 3, 2005. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(110) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(116) New and amended regulations were submitted on September 12, 2003, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; correcting amendments.
This action corrects the incorporation by reference provisions in the approval of the Idaho PM
This action is effective November 1, 2004.
Copies of the supporting documentation used in developing this action and the action being corrected are available for inspection during normal business hours at the following locations: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101; Idaho Operations Office, 1435 North Orchard Street, Boise, Idaho 83706.
Colleen Huck at (206) 553-1770 or Donna Deneen at (206) 553-6706 or at the above EPA, Region 10 address.
On October 27, 2003, (68 FR 61106), EPA approved an Idaho SIP maintenance plan which addressed the attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM
In approving the Ada County/Boise, Idaho PM
Idaho subsequently provided information to EPA indicating that the installation of the beet cleaning system,
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making today's rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because EPA is merely correcting a previous rulemaking action that had been subject to notice and comment procedures. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
Moreover, since today's action does not create any new regulatory requirements, EPA finds that good cause exists to provide for an immediate effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
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). Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This corrective action 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 will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
This corrective action does not involve technical standards; 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 action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 3, 2005. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a) * * *
(38) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(
Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD has issued a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to define a companion resource to the DFARS that contains mandatory and non-mandatory internal DoD procedures, non-mandatory guidance, and supplemental information. This new resource, entitled Procedures, Guidance, and Information, is a result of a transformation initiative undertaken by DoD to dramatically change the purpose and content of the DFARS.
Effective November 1, 2004.
Ms. Michele Peterson, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone (703) 602-0311; facsimile (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2003-D090.
DFARS Transformation is a major DoD initiative to dramatically change the purpose and content of the DFARS. The objective is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the acquisition process, while allowing the acquisition workforce the flexibility to innovate. The transformed DFARS will contain only requirements of law, DoD-wide policies, delegations of FAR authorities, deviations from FAR requirements, and policies/procedures that have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD or a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. Additional information on the DFARS Transformation initiative is available at
This final rule is a result of the DFARS Transformation initiative. The rule establishes the framework for a new DFARS companion resource, Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI), which contains mandatory and non-mandatory internal DoD procedures, non-mandatory guidance, and supplemental information. PGI will not be published in the Code of Federal Regulations, but will be available electronically at
DoD published a proposed rule at 69 FR 8145 on February 23, 2004. DoD received one comment on the proposed rule. The comment recommended additional policy and procedures relating to interagency acquisitions under the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535). The comment is considered to be outside the scope of this case, but will be considered with other changes being developed for DFARS Part 217, which addresses the Economy Act. DoD has adopted the proposed rule as a final rule without change.
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
DoD certifies that this final rule will not 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 rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
The DFARS and the DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) are available electronically via the World Wide Web at
The DAR Council is also responsible for maintenance of the DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI).
(a)(1) DoD implementation and supplementation of the FAR is issued in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) under authorization and subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense. The DFARS contains—
(i) Requirements of law;
(ii) DoD-wide policies;
(iii) Delegations of FAR authorities;
(iv) Deviations from FAR requirements; and
(v) Policies/procedures that have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD or a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors.
(2) Relevant procedures, guidance, and information that do not meet the criteria in paragraph (a)(1) of this section are issued in the DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI).
(1) Contains mandatory internal DoD procedures. The DFARS will direct compliance with mandatory procedures using imperative language such as “Follow the procedures at * * *” or similar directive language;
(2) Contains non-mandatory internal DoD procedures and guidance and supplemental information to be used at the discretion of the contracting officer. The DFARS will point to non-mandatory procedures, guidance, and information using permissive language such as “The contracting officer may use * * *” or “Additional information is available at * * *” or other similar language;
(3) Is numbered similarly to the DFARS, except that each PGI numerical designation is preceded by the letters “PGI”; and
(4) Is available electronically at
Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is making technical amendments to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to update Internet addresses and reference information.
Effective November 1, 2004.
Ms. Michele Peterson, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone (703) 602-0311; facsimile (703) 602-0350.
Government procurement.
41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
(a) * * *
(1) * * * DoDAACs can be found at
(d) Order code assignments can be found at
(S-70) See related information at PGI 208.404.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD has issued a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to update text pertaining to publicizing contract actions. This rule is a result of a transformation initiative undertaken by DoD to dramatically change the purpose and content of the DFARS.
Effective November 1, 2004.
Ms. Robin Schulze, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone (703) 602-0326; facsimile (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2003-D016.
DFARS Transformation is a major DoD initiative to dramatically change the purpose and content of the DFARS. The objective is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the acquisition process, while allowing the acquisition workforce the flexibility to innovate. The transformed DFARS will contain only requirements of law, DoD-wide policies, delegations of FAR authorities, deviations from FAR requirements, and policies/procedures that have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD or a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. Additional information on the DFARS Transformation initiative is available at
This final rule is a result of the DFARS Transformation initiative. The DFARS changes include—
• Deletion of text at DFARS 205.207(d)(ii) containing a notice to be included in acquisitions being considered for historically black college and university and minority institution (HBCU/MI) set-aside. This notice is being relocated to the new DFARS companion resource, Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI), with retention of a policy statement in DFARS 205.207 regarding use of the notice, and addition of a policy statement at DFARS 226.7003-2(c) regarding the requirement for an interested HBCU/MI to provide evidence of its capability and eligibility (which is also addressed in the notice). A final rule addressing the purpose and structure of PGI is published elsewhere in this issue of the
• Redesignation of DFARS 205.207(d)(iii) as 205.207(d)(ii), and
• Deletion of unnecessary text at DFARS 205.207(e), 205.470-1, and 205.502. The clause prescription at 205.470-2 is redesignated as 205.470 and amended to include a statutory reference.
DoD published a proposed rule at 69 FR 8148 on February 23, 2004. DoD received no comments on the proposed rule. Therefore, DoD has adopted the proposed rule as a final rule without change.
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
DoD certifies that this final rule will not 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 rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
(d)(i) For acquisitions being considered for historically black college and university and minority institution set-asides under 226.7003—
(A) Cite the appropriate Numbered Note; and
(B) Include the notice at PGI 205.207(d)(i).
(ii) For broad agency announcement notices, see 235.016.
Use the clause at 252.205-7000, Provision of Information to Cooperative Agreement Holders, in solicitations and contracts expected to exceed $500,000. This clause implements 10 U.S.C. 2416.
(a)
(c) Follow the special synopsis instructions in 205.207(d). Interested HBCU/MIs must provide evidence of their capability to perform the contract, and a positive statement of their eligibility, within 15 days of publication of the synopsis in order for the acquisition to proceed as an HCBU/MI set-aside.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD has issued a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to delete text on purchase of products from Federal Prison Industries (FPI). The DFARS text is no longer necessary as a result of Governmentwide policy on this subject that was added to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) on March 26, 2004.
Effective November 1, 2004.
Ms. Michele Peterson, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone (703) 602-0311; facsimile (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2004-D005.
DoD published DFARS policy at 67 FR 20687 on April 26, 2002, and 68 FR 64559 on November 14, 2003, to implement 10 U.S.C. 2410n, which contains requirements for (1) conducting market research before purchasing an FPI product; (2) use of competitive procedures if an FPI product is found to be noncomparable to products available from the private sector; (3) limiting an inmate worker's access to information; and (4) prohibiting mandatory use of FPI as a subcontractor.
Section 637 of Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-199), required the issuance of Governmentwide regulations that impose the procedures, standards, and limitations of 10 U.S.C. 2410n. Section 637 was implemented through publication of FAR policy in Federal Acquisition Circular 2001-21, at 69 FR 16148, on March 26, 2004. Since the FAR policy implementing 10 U.S.C. 2410n makes the DFARS policy unnecessary, this final rule removes the DFARS policy that was published at 67 FR 20687 on April 26, 2002, and 68 FR 64559 on November 14, 2003.
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under
This rule will not have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors, or a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD. Therefore, publication for public comment is not required. However, DoD will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should cite DFARS Case 2004-D005.
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Interim rule with request for comments.
DoD has issued an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement Section 847 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. Section 847 authorizes DoD to carry out a pilot program that permits the use of streamlined contracting procedures for the production of items or processes begun as prototype projects under other transaction agreements.
You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2003-D106, using any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Defense Acquisition Regulations Web Site:
• E-mail:
• Fax: (703) 602-0350.
• Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn: Ms. Amy Williams, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Crystal Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-3402.
All comments received will be posted to
Ms. Amy Williams, (703) 602-0328.
This interim rule adds a new DFARS subpart to implement Section 847 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136). Section 847 authorizes DoD to carry out a pilot program for follow-on contracting for the production of items or processes begun as prototype projects under other transaction agreements. Contracts and subcontracts awarded under the program may be treated as those for the acquisition of commercial items; and items or processes acquired under the program may be treated as developed in part with Federal funds and in part at private expense for purposes of negotiating rights in technical data.
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
DoD does not expect this 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 rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense that urgent and compelling reasons exist to publish an interim rule prior to affording the public an opportunity to comment. This interim rule implements Section 847 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136). Section 847 authorizes DoD to carry out a pilot program that permits the use of streamlined contracting procedures for the production of items or processes begun as prototype projects under other transaction agreements. The program is intended to ease the transition of nontraditional defense contractors from prototype transactions to standard
Government procurement.
41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
The DoD policy for acquiring commercial computer software is at 227.7202.
This subpart establishes the pilot program authorized by Section 847 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136).
As used in this subpart—
(1) Has entered into an other transaction agreement with DoD; and
(2) Has not, for a period of at least 1 year prior to the date of the other transaction agreement, entered into or performed on—
(i) Any contract that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards described in FAR Part 30; or
(ii) Any other contract exceeding $500,000 to carry out prototype projects or to perform basic, applied, or advanced research projects for a Federal agency that is subject to the FAR.
(1) Is other than a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement;
(2) Is not subject to the FAR or its supplements; and
(3) Is entered into in accordance with 32 CFR part 3.
(a) The contracting officer may use FAR part 12 procedures to award a contract for an item or process that does not meet the definition of “commercial item,” if the contract—
(1) Is awarded to a nontraditional defense contractor;
(2) Is a follow-on contract for the production of an item or process begun as a prototype project under an other transaction agreement;
(3) Does not exceed $50,000,000;
(4) Is awarded on or before September 30, 2008; and
(5) Is either—
(i) A firm-fixed-price contract; or
(ii) A fixed-price contract with economic price adjustment.
(b) See 212.7003 for special procedures pertaining to rights in technical data and computer software.
Except as provided in 212.7003, a subcontract for an item or process that does not meet the definition of “commercial item” may be treated as a subcontract for a commercial item, if the subcontract—
(a) Is under a contract awarded in accordance with 212.7002-1;
(b) Is awarded to a nontraditional defense contractor; and
(c) Is either—
(1) A firm-fixed-price subcontract; or
(2) A fixed-price subcontract with economic price adjustment.
For purposes of determining rights in technical data under 227.7102 and rights in computer software under 227.7202, items or processes acquired under a contract or subcontract awarded in accordance with 212.7002 may be treated as developed in part with Federal funds and in part at private expense (
(a) For technical data, use the clauses at 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data—Noncommercial Items, and 252.227-7037, Validation of Restrictive Markings on Technical Data;
(b) For computer software, use the clauses at 252.227-7014, Rights in Noncommercial Computer Software and Noncommercial Computer Software Documentation, and 252.227-7019, Validation of Asserted Restrictions—Computer Software;
(c) Require the contractor to include the clauses prescribed by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section in subcontracts awarded in accordance with 212.7002-2; and
(d) Negotiate for the appropriate technical data and computer software deliverables and special license rights in those deliverables, in view of the parties' relative contributions to the development of the items or processes.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD has issued a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to remove the Trade Agreements Act and the Buy American Act from the list of laws inapplicable to subcontracts for commercial items. This rule is a result of a transformation initiative undertaken by DoD to dramatically change the purpose and content of the DFARS.
Effective November 1, 2004.
Ms. Amy Williams, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone (703) 602-0328; facsimile (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2003-D018.
DFARS Transformation is a major DoD initiative to dramatically change the purpose and content of the DFARS. The objective is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the acquisition process, while allowing the acquisition workforce the flexibility to innovate. The transformed DFARS will contain only requirements of law, DoD-wide policies, delegations of FAR authorities, deviations from FAR requirements, and policies/procedures
This final rule is a result of the DFARS Transformation initiative. The rule amends DFARS 212.504 to remove the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2512) and the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10) from the list of laws inapplicable to subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial items. Inclusion of these laws on the list is unnecessary, because the Government does not apply the restrictions of the Buy American Act or the Trade Agreements Act at the subcontract level. The prime contractor is responsible for providing an end product that meets the requirements of the Acts.
DoD published a proposed rule at 69 FR 8151 on February 23, 2004. DoD received one comment in response to the proposed rule, and that comment supported the rule. Therefore, DoD has adopted the proposed rule as a final rule, with the addition of a correction to a cross-reference in 212.504(a).
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
DoD certifies that this final rule will not 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 rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD has issued a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to update text pertaining to contract cost principles. This rule is a result of a transformation initiative undertaken by DoD to dramatically change the purpose and content of the DFARS.
Effective November 1, 2004.
Mr. Thaddeus Godlewski, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone (703) 602-2022; facsimile (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2003-D036.
DFARS Transformation is a major DoD initiative to dramatically change the purpose and content of the DFARS. The objective is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the acquisition process, while allowing the acquisition workforce the flexibility to innovate. The transformed DFARS will contain only requirements of law, DoD-wide policies, delegations of FAR authorities, deviations from FAR requirements, and policies/procedures that have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD or a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. Additional information on the DFARS Transformation initiative is available at
This final rule is a result of the DFARS Transformation initiative. The DFARS changes—
• Delete the text at DFARS 231.205-10, Cost of money, because it is redundant of the text in DFARS Subpart 230.70, Facilities Capital Employed for Facilities in Use.
• Clarify the text at DFARS 231.205-22, Legislative lobbying costs, to specify that these costs are statutorily unallowable.
• Revise the text at DFARS 231.205-70, External restructuring costs, to—
1. Eliminate unnecessary references to fiscal years 1995, 1997, and 1998 legislation.
2. Delete text at 231.205-70(c)(1)(iv)(A) and (B) regarding business combinations that occurred on or before November 18, 1997. This text is unnecessary, because external restructurings normally must be initiated within 3 years of a business combination.
3. Delete text at 231.205-70(d), Procedures and ACO responsibilities. This text has been relocated to the new DFARS companion resource, Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI). A final rule addressing the purpose and structure of PGI is published elsewhere in this issue of the
DoD published a proposed rule at 69 FR 8154 on February 23, 2004. DoD received no comments on the proposed rule. Therefore, DoD has adopted the proposed rule as a final rule without change.
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
DoD certifies that this final rule will not 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 rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval
Government procurement.
41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(a) Costs associated with preparing any material, report, list, or analysis on the actual or projected economic or employment impact in a particular State or congressional district of an acquisition program for which all research, development, testing, and evaluation has not been completed also are unallowable (10 U.S.C. 2249).
(a)
(1) Prescribes policies and procedures for allowing contractor external restructuring costs when savings would result for DoD; and
(2) Implements 10 U.S.C. 2325.
(c)
(1) Restructuring costs associated with external restructuring activities shall not be allowed unless—
(i) Such costs are allowable in accordance with FAR Part 31 and DFARS Part 231;
(ii) An audit of projected restructuring costs and restructuring savings is performed;
(iii) The cognizant administrative contracting officer (ACO) reviews the audit report and the projected costs and projected savings, and negotiates an advance agreement in accordance with paragraph (d) of this subsection; and
(iv) For business combinations that occur after November 18, 1997, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) or the Principal Deputy determines in writing that the audited projected savings for DoD resulting from the restructuring will exceed either—
(A) The costs allowed by a factor of at least two to one; or
(B) The cost allowed, and the business combination will result in the preservation of a critical capability that might otherwise be lost to DoD.
(2) The audit, review, certification, and determination required by paragraph (c)(1) of this subsection shall not apply to any business combination for which payments for restructuring costs were made before August 15, 1994, or for which the cognizant ACO executed an advance agreement establishing cost ceilings based on audit/negotiation of detailed cost proposals for individual restructuring projects before August 15, 1994.
(d)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Modification of fishing season; request for comments.
NMFS announces that the commercial salmon fishery in the area from Humbug Mountain, OR to the Oregon-California Border was modified to be open September 1 through September 3, September 8 through September 10, and September 15 through September 30, or until the attainment of the 3,000 chinook quota, with a modified possession and landing limit of 50 chinook per day per vessel. This action was necessary to conform to the 2004 management goals. The intended effect of this action is to allow the fishery to operate within the seasons and quotas as specified in the 2004 annual management measures.
Adjustment in the area from Humbug Mountain, OR to the Oregon-California Border effective 0001 hours local time (l.t.) September 1, 2004, until the chinook quota is taken, or 2359 hours l.t., September 30, 2004; after which the fishery will remain closed until opened through an additional inseason action for the west coast salmon fisheries, which will be published in the
Comments on this action must be mailed to D. Robert Lohn, Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0070; or faxed to 206-526-6376; or Rod McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, NOAA, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4132; or faxed to 562-980-4018. Comments can also be submitted via e-mail at the
Christopher Wright, 206-526-6140.
The Regional Administrator modified the season for the commercial salmon fishery in the area from Humbug Mountain, OR to the Oregon-California Border to be open September 1 through September 3, September 8 through September 10, and September 15 through September 30, or until the attainment of the 3,000 chinook quota, with a modified possession and landing limit of 50 chinook per day per vessel. On August 19, 2004, the Regional Administrator determined that the available catch and effort data indicated that the quota of 3,000 chinook may be achieved quickly, and that provisions to slow the catch were needed to avoid exceeding the quota.
All other restrictions remained in effect as announced for 2004 ocean
In the 2004 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (69 FR 25026, May 5, 2004), NMFS announced the commercial fishery for all salmon except coho in the area from Humbug Mountain, OR to the Oregon-California Border would open March 15 through May 31; June 1 through the earlier of June 30 or a 2,600-chinook quota; July 1 through the earlier of July 31 or a 1,600-chinook quota; August 1 through the earlier of August 29 or a 2,500-chinook quota; and September 1 through the earlier of September 30 or a 3,000-chinook quota.
The fishery in the area from Humbug Mountain OR to the Oregon-California Border was modified by Inseason Action #4 to close at midnight on Saturday, June 19, 2004 (69 FR 40817, July 7, 2004) because the available catch and effort data indicated that the quota of 2,600 chinook salmon had been achieved.
The fishery in the area from Humbug Mountain, OR to the Oregon-California Border was modified by Inseason Action #8 to close at midnight on Monday, July 19, 2004 (69 FR 52449, August 26, 2004), because the available catch and effort data indicated that the quota of 1,600 chinook salmon had been achieved.
The fishery in the area from Humbug Mountain, OR to the Oregon-California Border was also modified by Inseason Action #9 to close at midnight on Wednesday, August 4, 2004 (69 FR 53362, September 1, 2004), because the available catch and effort data indicated that the quota of 2,500 chinook salmon had been achieved.
On August 19, 2004, the Regional Administrator consulted with representatives of the Pacific Fishery Management Council and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife by conference call. Information related to catch to date, the chinook catch rate, and effort data indicated that it was likely that the chinook quota could be reached early. As a result, the State of Oregon recommended, and the Regional Administrator concurred, that the area from Humbug Mountain, OR to the Oregon-California Border be modified to open September 1 through September 3, September 8 through September 10, and September 15 through September 30, or until the attainment of the 3,000-chinook quota, with a modified possession and landing limit of 50 chinook per day per vessel. All other restrictions that apply to this fishery remained in effect as announced in the 2004 annual management measures.
The Regional Administrator determined that the best available information indicated that the catch and effort data, and projections, supported the above inseason action recommended by the state. The states manage the fisheries in state waters adjacent to the areas of the U.S. exclusive economic zone in accordance with this Federal action. As provided by the inseason notice procedures of 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice to fishers of the above described action was given prior to the date this action was effective by telephone hotline number 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz.
This action does not apply to other fisheries that may be operating in other areas.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such notification would be impracticable. As previously noted, actual notice of this action was provided to fishers through telephone hotline and radio notification. This action complies with the requirements of the annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (69 FR 25026, May 5, 2004), the West Coast Salmon Plan, and regulations implementing the West Coast Salmon Plan (50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411). Prior notice and opportunity for public comment was impracticable because NMFS and the state agency have insufficient time to provide for prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time the fishery catch and effort data are collected to determine the extent of the fisheries, and the time the fishery modifications must be implemented to avoid exceeding the quota. Because the rate of chinook harvest was high in this fishery area in all of its previous openings, failure to slow the catch rate in the fishery would increase the risk of exceeding the quota, which could result in fewer spawning fish and possibly reduced yield of the stocks in the future. For the same reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness required under U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
This action is authorized by 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Modification of fishing seasons; request for comments.
NMFS announces that the commercial salmon fishery in the area from the Queets River to Cape Falcon, OR, was modified effective September 1, 2004, to allow for the retention of all legal sized coho with a landing provision that no vessel may possess, land, or deliver more than 500 coho for each 5-day open period until the earlier of September 15 or a quota of 10,000 coho. Unmarked coho could only be possessed and landed in the area from the Queets River to Cape Falcon. The recreational salmon fishery from the Queets River to Leadbetter Point, WA (Westport Subarea) was modified effective Sunday, August 29, 2004, to allow for the retention of all legal sized coho until the earlier of September 19 or a quota of 10,000 coho. Unmarked coho could only be possessed and landed in the Westport Subarea. In addition, 20,000 coho from the quota of the commercial fishery from the U.S.-Canada Border to Cape Falcon, OR, was traded for 5,000 chinook from the recreational Westport Subarea guideline. These actions were necessary to conform to the 2004 management goals.
Trade of coho and chinook effective August 19, 2004; adjustment for the area from the Queets River to Cape Falcon, OR, effective 0001 hours local time (l.t.) September 1, 2004, until the chinook quota or coho quota are taken, or 2359 hours l.t., September 15, 2004; and the adjustment for the area from the from the Queets River to Leadbetter Point, WA, effective 0001 hours l.t. August 29, 2004, until the chinook quota or coho quota are taken, or 2359 hours l.t., September 19, 2004; after which dates each fishery will remain closed until opened through an additional inseason action for the west coast salmon fisheries, which will be published in the
Comments on these actions must be mailed to D. Robert Lohn, Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0070; or faxed to 206-526-6376; or Rod McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, NOAA, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4132; or faxed to 562-980-4018. Comments can also be submitted via e-mail at the
Christopher Wright, 206-526-6140.
The NMFS Regional Administrator (RA) adjusted the commercial salmon fishery in the area from the Queets River to Cape Falcon, Oregon, effective September 1, 2004, to allow retention of all legal sized coho with a landing provision that no vessel may possess, land, or deliver more than 500 coho for each 5-day open period until the earlier of September 15 or a quota of 10,000 coho. Unmarked coho could only be possessed and landed in the area from the Queets River to Cape Falcon. The recreational salmon fishery from the Queets River to Leadbetter Point, WA (Westport Subarea) was modified effective Sunday, August 29, 2004, to allow retention of all legal sized coho until the earlier of September 19 or a quota of 10,000 coho. Unmarked coho could only be possessed and landed in the Westport Subarea. In addition, 20,000 coho from the quota of the commercial fishery from the U.S.-Canada Border to Cape Falcon, OR was traded for 5,000 chinook from the recreational Westport Subarea guideline. On August 19 the Regional Administrator had determined the available catch and effort data indicated that restricting the fishery to marked coho was no longer needed because the percentage of marked hatchery coho was less than what was predicted preseason and impacts to natural unmarked coho would be less than anticipated preseason. In addition, the commercial troll fishery was projected to reach its chinook quota, and because there were additional chinook in the recreational Westport Subarea guideline, a trade of coho for chinook could be done while still meeting conservation objectives and without impacting Westport Subarea recreational fishers.
All other restrictions remained in effect as announced for 2004 ocean salmon fisheries and previous inseason actions. These actions were necessary to conform to the 2004 management goals. Modification of quotas and/or fishing seasons is authorized by regulations at 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i). Modification of the species that may be caught and landed during specific seasons and the establishment or modification of limited retention regulations are authorized by regulations at 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(ii).
In the 2004 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (69 FR 25026, May 5, 2004), NMFS announced the commercial fishery for all salmon in the area from the U.S.-Canada Border to Cape Falcon, OR would open July 8 through the earlier of September 15, or a 14,700-chinook preseason guideline, or a 67,500-coho quota. The 67,500-coho quota included a subarea quota of 8,000 coho for the area between the U.S.-Canada border and the Queets River, WA. The fishery was scheduled to be open Thursday through Monday prior to August 11, and Wednesday through Sunday thereafter, with the restriction that no vessel may possess, land, or deliver more than 125 chinook for each 5-day open period.
The fishery in the area from the U.S.-Canada Border to Cape Falcon, OR was modified by Inseason Action #5 to open July 8 and close at midnight on July 12, 2004, then to reopen on July 16 through midnight on July 19, 2004, with the provision that no vessel may possess, land, or deliver more than 100 chinook for each open period (69 FR 43345, July 20, 2004). The fishing season was modified to slow the chinook catch rate and avoid exceeding the chinook quota. The fishery was scheduled to be reevaluated by an inseason conference call on July 14, and any further adjustments announced.
The fishery in the area from the U.S.-Canada Border to Cape Falcon, OR, was modified by Inseason Action #6 to a revised landing provision that no vessel may possess, land, or deliver more than 125 chinook for the open period of July 16 through July 19, 2004 (69 FR 51609, August 20, 2004). The fishery then reverted back to the regulations as announced for 2004 ocean salmon fisheries and would continue until the chinook quota or coho quota were taken, or September 15, which ever was earlier. The fishery was reopened on July 22, with an open cycle of Thursday through Monday prior to August 11, and Wednesday through Sunday thereafter, and a landing and possession limit of 125 chinook per vessel per each 5-day open period.
In the 2004 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (69 FR 25026, May 5, 2004), NMFS announced the recreational fishery in the area from the Queets River to Leadbetter Point, WA (Westport Subarea) would open June 27 through the earlier of September 19 or a 74,900-coho subarea quota, with a subarea guideline of 30,800 chinook.
The recreational fishery in the area from the Queets River, WA, to Cape Falcon, OR (Westport and Columbia River Subareaa) was modified by Inseason Action #7 to be open 7 days per week, with a modified daily bag limit of all salmon, two fish per day, and all retained coho must have a healed adipose fin clip, effective Friday, July 23, 2004, thus allowing for the retention of two chinook per day (69 FR 52448, August 26, 2004).
The recreational fisheries in the area from Cape Alava, WA to Cape Falcon, OR, (La Push, Westport, and Columbia River Subareas) were modified by Inseason Action #10 to have a minimum size limit for chinook of 24 inches (61.0 cm) total length; and for the area from Cape Alava to Queets River, WA (La Push Subarea) the daily bag limit was modified to: “all salmon, two fish per day, and all retained coho must have a healed adipose fin clip,” thus allowing for the retention of two chinook per day. In addition, 40,000 coho were reallocated from Queets River to Leadbetter Point, WA (Westport Subarea) quota, by transferring the coho on an impact neutral basis, to the coho quota in the subarea from the U.S.-Canada Border to Cape Alava, WA (Neah Bay Subarea), which increased
On August 19, 2004, the RA consulted with representatives of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife by conference call. Information related to catch and effort data indicated that restricting the fishery to marked coho was no longer needed because the percentage of marked hatchery coho was less than what was predicted preseason and impacts to natural unmarked coho would be less than anticipated preseason. In addition, the commercial troll fishery was projected to reach its chinook quota, and because there were additional chinook in the recreational Westport Subarea guideline, a trade of coho for chinook could be done while still meeting conservation objectives and without impacting Westport Subarea recreational fishers. As a result, on August 19 the states recommended, and the RA concurred, that the commercial salmon fishery in the area from the Queets River to Cape Falcon, OR be modified effective September 1, 2004, to allow for the retention of all legal sized coho with a landing provision that no vessel may possess, land, or deliver more than 500 coho for each 5-day open period until the earlier of September 15 or a quota of 10,000 coho. Unmarked coho could only be possessed and landed in the area from the Queets River to Cape Falcon. The recreational salmon fishery from the Queets River to Leadbetter Point, WA (Westport Subarea), would be modified effective Sunday, August 29, 2004, to allow for the retention of all legal sized coho until the earlier of September 19 or a quota of 10,000 coho. Unmarked coho could only be possessed and landed in the Westport Subarea. In addition, 20,000 coho from the quota of the commercial fishery from the U.S.-Canada Border to Cape Falcon, OR would be traded for 5,000 chinook from the recreational Westport Subarea guideline. All other restrictions that apply to these fisheries would remain in effect as announced in the 2004 annual management measures and previous inseason actions.
The RA determined that the best available information indicated that the catch and effort data, and projections, supported the above inseason actions recommended by the states. The states manage the fisheries in state waters adjacent to the areas of the U.S. exclusive economic zone in accordance with these Federal actions. As provided by the inseason notice procedures of 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice to fishers of the above described regulatory actions were given, prior to the date the action was effective, by telephone hotline number 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz.
These actions do not apply to other fisheries that may be operating in other areas.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such notification would be impracticable. As previously noted, actual notice of the regulatory actions was provided to fishers through telephone hotline and radio notification. These actions comply with the requirements of the annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (69 FR 25026, May 5, 2004), the West Coast Salmon Plan, and regulations implementing the West Coast Salmon Plan 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment was impracticable because NMFS and the state agencies had insufficient time to provide for prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time the fishery catch and effort data were collected to determine the extent of the fisheries, and the time the fishery modifications had to be implemented in order to allow fishers access to the available fish at the time the fish were available. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness required under U.S.C. 553(d)(3), as a delay in effectiveness of these actions would limit fishers appropriately controlled access to available fish during the scheduled fishing season by unnecessarily maintaining the restriction of selective fishing for marked coho in both the commercial and recreational fisheries.
These actions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. (Pilatus) Models PC-12 and PC-12/45 airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to check the airplane logbook to determine whether any main landing gear (MLG) actuator (part number (P/N) 960.30.01.103) with serial numbers (SNs) 830E through 881E is installed. If any MLG actuator with one of these SNs is installed, you are required to replace the MLG actuator with a P/N 960.30.01.103 actuator that has a SN other than 830E through 881E. The pilot is allowed to do the logbook check. If the pilot can positively determine that no MLG actuator with one of these SNs is installed, no further action is required. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for Switzerland. We are issuing this proposed AD to prevent failure of the MLG actuator, which could result in loss of hydraulic extension/retraction of the MLG. This failure could lead to loss of control during ground operations.
We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by December 3, 2004.
Use one of the following to submit comments on this proposed AD:
•
•
•
•
•
To get the service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison Manager, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; telephone: +41 41 619 6208; facsimile: +41 41 619 7311; e-mail:
To view the comments to this proposed AD, go to
Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.
It is possible that these components could have been removed and then
Under this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the FOCA has kept us informed of the situation described above.
Since the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other Pilatus Models PC-12 and PC-12/45 airplanes of the same type design that are registered in the United States, we are proposing AD action to prevent failure of the MLG actuator, which could result in loss of hydraulic extension/retraction of the MLG. This failure could lead to damage upon landing.
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement that would be required based on the results of this proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this replacement:
Pilatus will provide replacement parts free of charge if any MLG actuator with a SN 830E through 881E is returned to Pilatus. If purchased, the cost of a new actuator is $14,000. The cost of an overhauled actuator is $5,000.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
(a) We must receive comments on this proposed airworthiness directive (AD) by December 3, 2004.
(b) None.
(c) This AD affects Models PC-12 and PC-12/45 airplanes, all serial numbers, that are certificated in any category.
(d) This AD is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for Switzerland. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent failure of the main landing gear (MLG) actuator, which could result in loss of hydraulic extension/retraction of the MLG. This failure could lead to loss of control during ground operations.
(e) To address this problem, you must do the following:
The FAA recommends that you send any MLG actuator (P/N 960.30.01.103) with SN 830E through 881E to Pilatus.
(f) You may request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD by following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, send your request to your principal inspector. The principal inspector may add comments and will send your request to the Manager, Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA. For information on any already approved alternative methods of compliance, contact Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.
(g) Swiss AD Number HB 2004-330, dated August 18, 2004, also addresses the subject of this AD.
(h) To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison Manager, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; telephone: +41 41 619 6208; facsimile: +41 41 619 7311; e-mail:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Proposed rule.
Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The comment period is ninety (90) days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in each community.
The proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Doug Bellomo, P.E., Hazard Identification Section, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2903.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Division Director of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 67 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of a control date for the purposes of controlling entry in the general category Atlantic sea scallop fishery.
NMFS announces that it is considering, and is seeking public comment on, proposed rulemaking to control future access to the open access vessel permit category (general category) Atlantic sea scallop fishery if a management regime is developed and implemented under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to limit the number of participants in this sector of the scallop fishery. This sector of the fishery includes vessels with general category permits, as well as vessels with limited access scallop permits that land scallops while not on a scallop day-at-sea (DAS). This announcement is intended, in part, to promote awareness of potential eligibility criteria for future access so as to discourage speculative entry into the fishery while the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) considers whether and how access to the general category sea scallop fishery should be controlled. The date of publication of this notice, November 1, 2004, shall be known as the “control date” and may be used for establishing eligibility criteria for determining levels of future access to the sea scallop fishery subject to Federal authority.
Written comments must be received on or before 5:00 p.m., local time, December 1, 2004.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
• E-mail:
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
• Mail: Paper, disk, or CD-ROM comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on the Atlantic Sea Scallop Control Date Notice.”
• Fax: (978) 281-9135
.
Peter W. Christopher, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9288; fax 978-281-9135. email:
The Atlantic sea scallop is a benthic bivalve shellfish that supports a major commercial fishery on the Atlantic coast. Its distribution in Federal waters ranges from the international boundary with Canada, west to Georges Bank and southern New England, and then south to near the North Carolina/Virginia border. Sporadic concentrations of scallops are also found in the Gulf of Maine and south to areas off North Carolina. As scallop populations have rebuilt from being overfished, inshore areas have become more important to smaller commercial scallop fishing vessels. Notable areas where this inshore fishery takes place include the Gulf of Maine; the Great South Channel near Cape Cod, Massachusetts; the Nantucket Lightship Area; off Long Island, New York; off the central New Jersey coast; and off the Delmarva Peninsula.
Landings of scallop meats were 54.9 million lb (24.9 million kg) in 2003 (an increase of 8.1 percent compared to 2002), with a dockside value of $224.3 million. Of this amount, 1.9 million lb (861,826 kg) (3.5 percent) of scallop meats were landed by 335 vessels with general category scallop permits. Of this general category fishing activity, 175 vessels with general category permits used scallop dredges to land 1.3 million lb (589,670 kg) of scallops, according to Federal dealer reports. In addition to the 660,000 lb (299,371 kg) that vessels with general category permits were reported to have landed during March 1 to December 31, 2002, limited access vessels landed an additional 96,000 lb (43,545 kg)(12.7 percent of the general category landings) while fishing under general category rules, according to the analysis in the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP) Amendment 10 document.
Further, the number of general category scallop permits issued between 2000 and 2004 is higher than the number of permits issued between 1994 and 1999. During the years 1994 to 1999 the number of permits issued ranged from 1,960 (in 1994) to 2,074 (in 1999). During the years 2000 to 2004 the number of permits issued ranged from 2,247 (in 2000) to 2,536 (in 2003). Since March 1, 2004, general category permits issued during the 2004 fishing year stand at 2,367.
According to the stock projections in the Framework 16 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP and Framework 39 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP analysis, the current sea scallop Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) estimate is about 55 million lb (25 million kg) of meats. Annual landings are expected to vary considerably from this amount at times, due to natural variability in scallop recruitment. The Council notes that current capacity in the scallop fishery is sufficient to harvest or exceed MSY, and additional fishing by vessels that fish under general category rules has the potential to cause overfishing. The Council is also concerned that such fishing may change the historic distribution of landings among vessels, reduce the number of fishing days allocated to limited access vessels, and allow vessels that are not traditional participants in the scallop fishery to enter the fishery in response to improving scallop resource conditions coupled with increasing restrictions and declining prices in other fisheries.
The Council's original intent in establishing the general category scallop permit implemented in 1994 through Amendment 4 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP, was to accommodate customary scallop bycatch in other fisheries and allow a flexible program for seasonal or opportunistic fisheries targeting inshore scallops. In response to recent concerns raised to the Council about expansion of directed scallop fishing under general category rules, the Council may consider development of an amendment to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP or framework action that could restrict access in the general category scallop fishery to control harvest capacity. Future entry into the general category fishery may be based on levels of participation (e.g., permit categories based on historic harvest levels of a vessel) or other criteria related to overall harvest capacity.
The control date is intended to discourage speculative entry into the general category scallop fishery while controlled access restrictions are considered by the Council. The control date will help to distinguish established participants from speculative entrants to the fishery. Although entering the fishery after the control date will not ensure fishing vessels of future access to the sea scallop resource on the grounds of previous participation, additional and/or other qualifying criteria may also be applied. The Council may choose different and variably weighted methods to qualify participants based on the type and length of participation in the general category scallop fishery.
This notification established November 1, 2004, as the control date for potential use in determining historical or traditional participation in the general category scallop fishery. Consideration of a control date does not commit the Council or NMFS to develop any particular management system or criteria for participation in this fishery. The Council may choose a different control date, or may choose a management program that does not make use of such a date.
Fishers are not guaranteed future participation in the fishery, regardless of their entry dates or level of participation in this fishery before or after the control date. The Council may choose to give variably weighted consideration to fishers active in the fishery before and after the control date. The Council may also choose to take no further action to control entry or access to the fishery, in which case the control date may be rescinded. Any action by the Council will be taken pursuant to the requirements for the development of FMP amendments established under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
This notification also gives the public notice that interested participants should locate and preserve records that substantiate and verify their participation in the general category scallop fishery in Federal waters.
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to 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 should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to 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 should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with the payment of indemnity for the voluntary depopulation of captive cervid herds known to be affected with chronic wasting disease.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before January 3, 2005.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
EDOCKET: Go to
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. 04-110-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 04-110-1.
E-mail: Address your comment to
Agency Web site: Go to
For information on the payment of indemnity for chronic wasting disease, contact Dr. Dean Goeldner, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Eradication and Surveillance Team, National Center for Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-4916. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477.
CWD is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy of cervids (elk, deer, and other members of the deer family) and is typified by chronic weight loss leading to death. The presence of CWD in cervids causes significant economic and market losses to U.S. producers.
The regulations in 9 CFR part 55 authorize the payment of indemnity for the voluntary depopulation of CWD-positive, -exposed, or -suspect captive cervids. In order to take part in the indemnity program, cervid producers must apply for participation, must sign a payment, appraisal, and agreement form, and must certify as to whether any other parties hold mortgages on the herd. These requirements involve the use of two information collection instruments: an Appraisal/Indemnity Claim Form (VS Form 1-23) and a Herd Plan Agreement.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning this information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies,
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public of our decision to extend to one additional corn line our determination that a corn line developed by Mycogen Seeds c/o Dow AgroSciences LLC, which has been genetically engineered for insect resistance and tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate, is no longer considered a regulated article under our regulations governing the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms. Our decision is based on our evaluation of data submitted by Mycogen c/o Dow in its request for an extension of a determination of nonregulated status, an analysis of other scientific data, and a comment received from the public in response to a previous notice. This notice also announces the availability of our written determination and our finding of no significant impact.
October 20, 2004.
You may read the extension request, the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact, and the comment we received on our previous notice in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
APHIS documents published in the
Ms. Robyn Rose, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, Suite 5B05, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-0489. To obtain a copy of the extension request or the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact, contact Ms. Terry Hampton at (301) 734-5715; e-mail:
The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.”
The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Further, the regulations in § 340.6(e)(2) provide that a person may request that APHIS extend a determination of nonregulated status to other organisms. Such a request must include information to establish the similarity of the antecedent organism and the regulated article in question.
On June 30, 2003, APHIS received a request for an extension of a determination of nonregulated status (APHIS No. 03-181-01p) from Mycogen Seeds c/o Dow AgroSciences LLC (Mycogen/Dow) of Indianapolis, IN, for corn (
On August 17, 2004, APHIS published a notice in the
Like the antecedent organism, corn line 6275 has been genetically engineered to express a Cry1F insecticidal protein derived from the common soil bacterium
Corn line 6275 expresses an insecticidal crystal protein identical in amino acid sequence to the Cry1F protein expressed in line 1507, both lines express an identical protein which confers tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate, and the recipient line used in both lines was the same public line Hi-II. Accordingly, we have determined that corn line 6275 is similar to the antecedent organism in APHIS petition number 00-136-01p and that corn line 6275 should no longer be regulated under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340.
Corn line 6275 has been considered a regulated article under APHIS regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because it contains gene sequences derived from plant pathogens. However, corn line 6275 has been field tested since 1999 under APHIS authorizations. In the process of reviewing the notifications for field trials of the subject corn, APHIS determined that the vectors and other elements were disarmed and that the trials, which were conducted under conditions of reproductive and physical confinement or isolation, would not present a risk of plant pest introduction or dissemination.
Based on an analysis of the data submitted by Mycogen/Dow and a review of other scientific data, APHIS has determined that corn line 6275: (1) Exhibits no plant pathogenic properties; (2) is no more likely to become a weed than corn varieties developed by traditional breeding techniques and is unlikely to increase the weediness potential for any other cultivated or wild species with which it can interbreed; (3) will not cause damage to raw or processed agricultural commodities; (4) will not harm
Because APHIS has determined that the subject corn line does not present a plant pest risk based on its similarity to the antecedent organism, Mycogen/Dow corn line 6275 will no longer be considered a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340. Therefore, the requirements pertaining to regulated articles under those regulations no longer apply to the field testing, importation, or interstate movement of the subject corn line or its progeny. However, importation of corn line 6275 and seeds capable of propagation are still subject to the restrictions found in APHIS' foreign quarantine notices in 7 CFR part 319 and imported seed regulations in 7 CFR part 361.
An EA was prepared to examine any potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed extension of a determination of nonregulated status for the subject corn line. The EA was prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), re-certified the trade adjustment assistance (TAA) petition that was filed by the Puget Sound Salmon Commission on behalf of Washington salmon fishermen and initially certified on October 22, 2003. Salmon fishermen holding permits and licenses in the State of Washington will be eligible to apply for fiscal year 2005 benefits during a 90-day period beginning on November 1, 2004. The application period closes on January 31, 2005.
Upon investigation, the Administrator determined that continued increases in imports of farmed salmon contributed importantly to a decline in the average landed price of salmon in Washington by 24.6 percent during the 2003 marketing period (January-December 2003), compared to the 1997-2001 base period. Eligible producers may request technical assistance from the Extension Service at no cost and receive an adjustment assistance payment, if certain program criteria are satisfied. Applicants who did not receive technical assistance under the fiscal 2004 TAA program must obtain the technical assistance prior to May 2, 2005 in order to be eligible for financial payments.
Producers of raw agricultural commodities wishing to learn more about TAA and how they may apply should contact the Department of Agriculture at the addresses provided below for general information.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the new information collection, Public Perceptions of Wildfire Management within the Southern California Wildland-Urban Interface. This study requires administration of a survey to a statistical sample of forest proximate residents and visitors.
Comments must be received in writing on or before January 3, 2005, to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Dr. James Absher, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, USDA, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, CA 92507.
Comments may also be submitted via facsimile to (951) 680-1501 or by e-mail to
The public may inspect comments received at the Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, USDA, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, California, during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to (951) 680-1500 to facilitate entry to the building.
Dr. James Absher, Pacific Southwest Research Station. (951) 680-1559. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 24 hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.
Information will be collected from residents of communities adjacent to a National Forest in southern California and from visitors to the same National Forest area. The information collected will provide forest managers with greater understanding of public attitudes, preferences, and behaviors related to the Forest Service's wildland fire management, including fire management practices and policies, information about respondents' own behaviors related to hazard reduction and preparedness, and respondents' knowledge of Forest Service fire management programs, such as Firewise.
Researchers will use two primary methods of data collection: (a) a self administered questionnaire mailed to residents in forest proximate neighborhoods and (b) an onsite interview with a follow-up mail questionnaire. Both interview and questionnaire are voluntary.
Experts in recreation, social science and fire management from the Forest Service and cooperating universities, in consultation with National Forest staff, will develop the surveys. The researchers will then administer the surveys to a random sample of residents drawn from adjacent communities and visitors to the Forest, analyze the information and incorporate the results and recommendations into reports for use by managers and other researchers. This survey is necessary to provide information about residents and visitors' perceptions and preferences related to Forest Service fire management policy and practice, and will enable the Forest Service to better respond to community need.
Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.
USDA Forest Service.
Notice of intent to prepare Environmental Impact Statement.
The USDA Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for black-tailed prairie dog
Written comments must be received within 30 days after publication in the
Written comments on the proposed action must be sent to Donald J. Bright, Forest Supervisor, USDA Forest Service, 125 North Main, Chadron, Nebraska 69337.
William M. Perry, Team Leader, USDA Forest Service, at POB 425, Wall, South Dakota, or call (605) 279-2125.
The LRMP provides general guidance and direction for conserving and managing black-tailed prairie dogs on NFS lands. This guidance and direction addresses use of rodenticides, landownership adjustment, vegetation management, livestock grazing, prairie dog shooting/hunting, and other management options to either expand or limit growth of prairie dog populations and colonies on NFS lands. A guideline under animal damage management in the LRMP (p. 1-21) directs the Forest Service to consult statewide prairie dog management plans for additional guidance on the appropriate response to complaints of unwanted prairie dog colonization on adjacent agricultural lands. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the LRMP stated that the Forest Service intended to implement state-wide prairie dog management plans to the extent allowable by law and policy in providing direction for the control of unwanted prairie dog colonization on adjacent lands through a LRMP amendment, if necessary.
Since the July, 2002 ROD, several events have occurred that influence the management of prairie dogs and make this proposal timely:
1. In the August 12, 2004,
2. The South Dakota prairie dog management plan is in the final stages of completion and awaiting approval. It is unlikely that the State of Nebraska will issue a statewide prairie dog management plan, at least in the foreseeable future.
3. Extended drought conditions have increased prairie dog colony expansion, prairie dog movement, and unwanted colonization of adjacent lands.
4. In response to lethal prairie dog control conducted by USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in the fall of 2004, several conservation organizations expressed concern over the effects of lethal prairie dog control on the Conata Basin black-footed ferret population and other associated wildlife.
The Forest Service is proposing an adaptive management approach to guide implementation of current LRMP direction for prairie dogs and additional new direction for reducing unwanted prairie dog colonization on adjacent agricultural lands. This proposed action will apply to all NFS lands administered by NNF. This proposed action may require an amendment to the LRMP. This proposed action may adjust direction regarding the use of lethal and non-lethal control methods while continuing to make progress in meeting the conservation goals, objectives and direction in the LRMP for prairie dogs and associated wildlife. The Forest Service intends to develop criteria to determine when, where, and how adaptive management may be used.
The Forest Service has considerable experience conserving and managing prairie dogs and related issues on NFS lands. As a minimum, the following issues are anticipated:
• Unwanted prairie dog colonization on adjacent lands and effects on landowners;
• Conservation of black-tailed prairie dogs, a management indicator species and Region 2 sensitive species;
• The importance of prairie dogs and these public lands, especially the Conata Basin/Badlands Ferret Reintroduction Area, to the recovery of the endangered black-footed ferret;
• Effects on other wildlife species associated with prairie dogs;
• Effects on livestock grazing permittees;
• Humane treatment of prairie dogs and other associated wildlife;
• Costs and effectiveness of management strategies.
Possible alternatives for the conservation and management of prairie dogs while reducing their movement from NFS lands and unwanted colonization of adjacent lands may include but are not limited to the following:
• Continue implementation of current LRMP direction for prairie dogs on a case-by-case basis. Only non-lethal strategies would be used in response to unwanted prairie dog colonization on adjacent agricultural lands (no action alternative);
• Continue implementation of current LRMP direction for prairie dogs and develop a LRMP amendment and implementation plan that are in full accordance with state prairie dog management plans or recommendations. This may require an amendment to the LRMP;
• Use an adaptive management strategy to guide implementation of prairie dog conservation and management direction in the current LRMP and additional new direction for reducing unwanted prairie dog colonization on adjacent agricultural lands. This will include appropriate management recommendations from the States of South Dakota and Nebraska, and this may require an amendment to the LRMP.
Donald J. Bright, Forest Supervisor, USDA Forest Service, 125 North Main Street, Chadron, Nebraska 69337.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is not a decision document. The purpose of the DEIS is to disclose the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of a proposed action and other alternative actions that are analyzed. After allowing the public an opportunity to comment on the specific activities described in the alternatives, the Forest Service reviews the proposed action, other alternatives, and the environmental consequences in order to make the following decisions:
1. Determine whether an implementation plan is needed to guide management aimed at reducing conflicts resulting from prairie dog movement from NFS lands onto adjacent private lands;
2. If an implementation plan is needed, determine when, where, and how management tools will be applied and monitored;
3. Determine whether an amendment to the LRMP is needed to adjust the guidance for prairie dog management.
The Forest Service will be consulting with federal, state, local agencies, tribes, and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in or affected by the proposal. Other federal and state agencies will have cooperating agency status.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Comments should focus on the nature of the action proposed and should be relevant to the decision under consideration. Comments received from the public will be evaluated for significant issues and used to assist in the development of additional alternatives.
A DEIS will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be at least 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the DEIS 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 DEIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.
Forest Service.
Notice of meeting.
The Deschutes Advisory Committee will meet on November 9, 2004, starting at 9 a.m. at the Jefferson County Firehall on the corner of Adam and “J” Street in Madras, Oregon. Agenda items will include approval of this year's Northwest Forest Plan Monitoring report, Understanding Landscape Processes in Central Oregon, Local Community Protection Plans, B and B Project Update, and a discussion on upcoming topics and meeting dates. All Deschutes Province Advisory Committee Meetings are open to the public and an open public forum is scheduled from 2:30 to 3 p.m.
Chris Mickle, Province Liaison, Deschutes NF, Crescent RD, P.O. Box 208, Crescent, OR 97754, phone (541) 433-3216.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Fresno County Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Prather, CA. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss and to recommend project proposals for FY2005 funds regarding the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) for expenditure of Payments to States Fresno County title II funds.
The meeting will be held on December 14, 2004, from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Sierra National Forest, High Sierra Ranger District, 29688 Auberry Road, Prather, CA 93651. Send written comments to Robbin Ekman, Fresno County Resource Advisory Committee Coordinator, c/o Sierra National Forest, High Sierra Ranger District, 29688 Auberry Road, Prather, CA 93651 or electronically to
Robbin Ekman, Fresno County Resource Advisory Committee Coordinator, (559) 855-5355 ext. 3341.
The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring Payments to States Fresno County title II project matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting.
Public sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by October 12, 2004 will have the opportunity to address the Committee at those sessions. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Call for new projects; (2) report back from project recipients; (3) public comment.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of abolishment of records systems.
A review of several Privacy Act Systems of Records has concluded that those systems are no longer in effect or are obsolete. Those systems are being abolished from the Forest Service Systems of Records in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This notice is effective on November 1, 2004.
For additional information contact Rita Morgan, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Officer, SW., Mail Stop 1143, 1400 Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20250-1143.
Rita Morgan, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Officer, Telephone: (703) 605-4913.
The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, requires that each agency publish a notice of the existence and character of each new or altered “system of records.” 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(5). This notice identifies and abolishes the Forest Service's discontinued and obsolete systems of records. The Forest Service is abolishing the following 10 sytems of records which, upon review, are no longer used or are not properly Privacy Act records, and are, therefore, obsolete: USDA/FS-01—Appeals and Administrative Reviews; USDA/FS-17—Mineral Operations; USDA/FS-18—Mineral Claimants; USDA/FS-20—Public Correspondence Concerning Timber Management; USDA/FS-21—Public Involvement Respondents on Forest Service Activities; USDA/FS-23 FILL IN NAME; USDA/FS-32—Professional Registration and Professional Society Affiliation, Engineering-Related Personnel-Eastern Region; USDA/FS-48—YCC Long-Term Benefit Evaluation; USDA/FS-49—International Skills Roster of Forestry and Natural Resources Expertise; USDA/FS-50—Skills Bank Data Base.
DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
The National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, authorizes and directs NSF “* * * to provide a central clearinghouse for the collection, interpretation, and analysis of data on scientific and engineering resources and to provide a source of information for policy formulation by other agencies of the Federal government.” The Survey is the vehicle with which NSF carries out the industrial portion of this mandate. NSF together with the Census Bureau, the collecting and compiling agent, analyze the data and publish the resulting statistics.
Industry is the major performer of research and development (R&D) in the United States, spending over 70 percent of total U.S. R&D outlays each year. A consistent industrial R&D information base is essential to government officials formulating public policy, industry personnel involved in corporate planning, and members of the academic community conducting research. To develop policies designed to promote and enhance science and technology, past trends and the present status of R&D must be known and analyzed. Without comprehensive industrial R&D statistics, it would be impossible to evaluate the health of science and technology in the United States or to make comparisons between the technological progress of our country and that of other nations.
Statistics from the Survey are published in NSF's annual publication series, Research and Development in Industry, available via the Internet at
Prior to the last request for OMB review, response to four questions (total net sales and total employment for the company; and the amount of Federal and total funds the company spent on R&D) was mandatory and fulfilled the Census Bureau's data-collecting mandate in Title 13, U.S. Code, 131, 182, 224 and 225. The last request asked for authorization to increase the number of annual mandatory items from 4 to 5 by adding the item, cost of R&D performed within the company by state, to the list. Further, authorization to make the entire survey mandatory every five years to coincide with the Census Bureau's Economic Census was requested and approved. The “all-mandatory” requirement was first applied for the 2002 cycle of the Survey.
The next economic census will be conducted for 2007 and authorization to apply the requirement will be requested again. In the meantime, response to other than the five mandatory items will remain voluntary for the three non-economic census years covered by this request.
In addition to burden hours sufficient to cover the normal operation of the survey, we are also requesting 5,000 hours annually to cover methodological and survey quality improvement efforts.
Policy officials from many Federal agencies rely on statistics from this survey for essential information. For example, total U.S. R&D expenditures statistics have been used by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to update the System of National Accounts and, in fact, the first attempt by BEA to establish a separate R&D satellite account in the System is underway. Results from the Survey are needed to develop and subsequently update this detailed satellite account. Also, recently a new data linking project has begun that is designed to augment the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) data collected by BEA. This project is the first to test new data sharing legislation. The linking of the results of the 1997 cycle of the Survey with BEA's 1997 FDI benchmark files is the first application of the recently enacted Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (CIPSEA) that allows limited data sharing among selected Federal statistical agencies. Future FDI linkages are planned to begin with the 2002 Survey file. Further, the Census Bureau links data collected by the Survey with other statistical files. At the Census Bureau, historical company-level R&D data are linked to a file that contains information on the outputs and inputs of companies' manufacturing plants. Researchers are able to analyze the relationships between R&D funding and other economic variables by using micro-level data.
Many individuals and organizations access the survey statistics via the Internet and hundreds have asked to have their names placed on the mailing list for a paper copy of the annual SRS InfoBrief that announces the availability of statistics from each cycle of the Survey. Information about the kinds of projects that rely on statistics from the Survey is available from internal records of NSF's Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS). In addition, survey statistics are regularly printed in trade publications and many researchers use the survey statistics from these secondary sources without directly contacting NSF or the Census Bureau.
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 (
DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Since there are many different types and sizes of governments, each form is tailored to the unique characteristics of the type and size of government or government agency to be surveyed. The type of employment and pay data collected by the public employment program in the 2005 and 2006 Annual Survey of Government Employment and the 2007 Census of Governments is identical to data collected in recent annual surveys of government employment.
By state, the 2005 and 2006 Employment sample supports estimates of total local government employment and payrolls by type of government and government function. The 2007 Census of Governments will collect data for all of the governments in our universe by type of government and by government function.
Statistics compiled from data gathered using these forms are used in several important Federal government programs. Economists at the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) use the statistics in two ways for developing the National Income and Product Accounts. First, the employment data are used in developing price deflators for the government sector components of the gross domestic product accounts. Secondly, the employment and payroll data are used in developing the government sector components for the national and sub-national personal income accounts and tables.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) determines the allocation of operating subsidies to local housing authorities based on these survey data. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) used these data in its benchmarking procedures for state and local government components of the BLS monthly employment and earnings statistics.
The employment data are used for three other data collection efforts currently conducted by the Census Bureau. The Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS) collects data for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on health plans offered to state and local government employees. The MEPS sample of public employees is drawn from the Census of Governments Employment file. The Criminal Justice Employment and Expenditure Survey (CJEE) and the Justice Assistance Data Survey (JADS) use employment data to provide employee and payroll statistics on police protection and correctional activities.
State and local government officials use these data to analyze and assess individual government labor force and wage levels. Both management and labor consult these data during wage and salary negotiations.
Public interest groups of many types produce analyses of public sector activities using these data. User organizations representing state and local government include the Council of State Governments, National Conference of State Legislatures, Government Research Association, Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, and the International City/County Management Association. A third category, having a more specific focus on government activities, includes organizations such as the Tax Foundation, Michigan Taxpayers Association, National Sheriffs Association, and the Government Research Association.
A variety of other organizations and individuals make use of these data. Notable research organizations include the American Enterprise Institute, The Brookings Institution, the Rand Corporation, the Cato Institute, the Hudson Institute, and the Rockefeller Institute of Government. The instructors, researchers, and students in schools of public administration, political science, management, and industrial relations as well as other members of the public also use these data.
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 (
DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
COS inquiries to each of the 55,000 multi-establishment enterprises will include questions on ownership or control by a domestic parent, ownership or control by a foreign parent, and ownership of foreign affiliates. Additional COS inquiries will apply to approximately 1.2 million establishments operated by these 55,000 enterprises. These additional inquiries will list an inventory of establishments and request updates to the inventory, including additions, deletions, and changes to Federal Employer Identification number, name and address, and industrial classification. Further, the additional inquiries will collect the following basic operating data for each listed establishment: End-of-year operating status, mid-March employment, first quarter payroll, and annual payroll.
In addition to the 55,000 multi-establishment enterprises, the COS will include up to 10,000 single-location business entities that may have added some locations.
The information collected by the COS is used to maintain and update the BR. The BR serves two fundamental purposes:
First and most important, it provides sampling populations and enumeration lists for the Census Bureau's economic surveys and censuses, and it serves as an integral part of the statistical foundation underlying those programs. Essential for this purpose is the BR's ability to identify all known United States business establishments and their parent companies. Further, the BR must accurately record basic business attributes needed to control sampling and enumeration. These attributes include industrial and geographic classifications, measures of size and economic activity, ownership characteristics, and contact information (for example, name and address).
Second, it provides establishment data that serve as the basis for the annual County Business Patterns (CBP) statistical series. The CBP reports present data on number of establishments, first quarter payroll, annual payroll, and mid-March employment summarized by industry and employment size class for the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, counties, and county-equivalents. No other annual or more frequent series of industry statistics provides comparable detail, particularly for small geographic areas.
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 (
The Department of Commerce has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
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 David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number (202) 395-7285, or
Proposed collection; comment request.
The Department of Commerce, 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)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before January 3, 2005.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Edison Gore, U.S. Census Bureau, Building 2, Room 2012, Washington, DC 20233-9200, (301) 763-3998.
The 2005 National Census Test (NCT) is part of the research and development cycle leading up to the re-engineered 2010 Census. The NCT will help the U.S. Census Bureau achieve one of its Strategic Goals—developing a census that is cost-effective, improves coverage, and reduces operational risk.
The Objectives of the 2005 NCT include studying methods for:
• Improving completeness and accuracy of reporting for short form items.
• Reducing respondent and data capture errors.
• Making questionnaires more respondent friendly.
• Improving coverage accuracy.
• Improving the operational feasibility of a targeted mailing for replacement questionnaires.
• Improving self-response and maintaining data quality by mailing bilingual questionnaires.
In conjunction with the 2005 NCT, the Census Bureau will conduct the 2005 Coverage Followup (CFU) operation. This operation is a continuation of the research and testing program begun in 2002 that is intended to develop and evaluate new procedures to improve coverage and reduce duplication. The CFU operation will collect data to evaluate the different versions of the coverage questions and different presentations of the residence rules instructions (
The Control questionnaire will include short-form topics from the Census 2000 questionnaire. The standard mailing strategy will be used for both the initial and replacement Control questionnaires. All wording changes in the control questionnaire that are different from the Census 2000 questionnaire reflect refinements based on the 2004 Census Test questionnaire. The short form questions included in the Control questionnaire are currently considered to be the “best” version of each question. Our objective is to determine whether the experimental panels' question wording can improve the item response and data completeness over the control panel questions.
The control questionnaire will use the Residence Rules Instructions (
The Control Component includes four Self Response Option (SRO) treatments, each using the same form, content and initial questionnaire mailing strategy. Previous tests have shown that sending non-respondents a replacement questionnaire significantly increases response rates. We will employ four variations of the traditional replacement mailing strategy.
• Two treatments are planned to test the operational feasibility of two different replacement questionnaire-packaging strategies. Since the questionnaires designed to be included in these treatments may also “look” different, we also need to evaluate the response to them.
• A third treatment is planned to test the effect of providing a letter encouraging respondents to send in their original questionnaire or respond via the Internet. Households in this panel will not receive a replacement questionnaire.
• The fourth treatment is planned to test whether using messaging on the replacement questionnaire (that distinguishes it from the initial questionnaire) will increase response rates as well as reduce response duplication. This treatment is intended to create a clear differentiation between the replacement questionnaire and the original in order to make it easier for respondents to understand the intent of the replacement questionnaire.
The questionnaires for the Control component and the four (SRO) treatments share the same design and mailing strategy for the initial questionnaire. Consequently, we will be able to compare the results from the Control questionnaire with the results from the initial questionnaires in the SOR treatments. Doing so will give us a much larger sample for comparisons.
For the 2005 NCT, we plan to test modifications of the questions on race and Hispanic origin that are consistent with the 1997 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Directive 15 (
The Hispanic origin and race component of the 2005 NCT is intended to evaluate the following elements: question design, the use of examples, revised wording of the questions and instructions, and a tribal enrollment question.
We plan to test two fundamentally different designs—the traditional Hispanic origin and race design and a new design that includes shortened questions on Hispanic origin and race combined with a third question on ancestry. The shortened design includes only the five minimum OMB race categories and eliminates all write-ins. The Hispanic origin question component will consist of a yes/no option with no write-in option. The ancestry question component will include write-in lines that are intended to permit respondents to provide detailed information on their ancestry or country of origin.
We need to determine how useful it is to include examples of the OMB race categories to help respondents understand the intent of the design that includes the shortened questions. Consequently we plan to test this design with and without examples. We are currently conducting cognitive tests in order to select the most promising sets of examples for the 2005 NCT. We will choose the examples that yield the highest quality data for use in the 2008 Dress Rehearsal.
Secondly, based on the results of past censuses, we know that the specific examples used in the ancestry question can affect reporting. Since the detailed Hispanic origin (
We plan to test the effect of changing the word order of the Hispanic origin
In addition, we plan to test revisions to the “MARK ONE OR MORE” instruction in order to make it more user-friendly, and we plan to test the effectiveness of the revised note that is intended to encourage respondents to answer both of the traditionally formulated race and Hispanic origin questions. The note is intended to reduce the number of Hispanics who report “Some other race”. The final wording of the question will be determined by cognitive testing that is currently underway.
The 2005 NCT plans to test a tribal enrollment question to attempt to determine what proportion of those who report a tribe are enrolled. We are currently conducting cognitive testing to determine the final wording of the question. We plan to evaluate the quality of tribal enrollment data.
We plan to test the following elements in the Tenure (own or rent) and other population questions: dropping the reference to “cash” rent, adding an instruction to improve the reporting of home equity loans, and a version that combines both treatments.
We intend to test the effect of eliminating the term “cash” from the tenure question, since the traditional formulation of the question has been criticized as not accurately depicting how rent is actually paid (
Since we are not sure whether respondents understand that home equity loans are liens against the home, we also plan to test an instruction asking respondents who own their own homes whether they have a mortgage or loan, including home equity loans. We plan to evaluate the resulting owner distribution (owned free and clear vs. owned with a mortgage or loan). We plan to evaluate both variables in order to choose the version of the question that yields the highest quality data for use in future tests.
In Census 2000, many respondents incorrectly reported the age of babies under one year of age. The 2005 NCT will test an instruction in the Age question to help respondents correctly determine the age of babies who are less than one year old. We also plan to reverse the order of the Age and Date of Birth questions to make them consistent with electronic modes such as the Internet.
We plan to test the effect on response distributions of replacing “Foster Child” with “Foster child or foster adult”. Cognitive tests indicate that respondents understand the phrase “foster adult” and do not consider it to be offensive.
We plan to test the effect on data quality of replacing “Natural-born son/daughter” with “Biological son/daughter” [used in the Survey of Income and Program Participation]. Adoptive parents have received the term “Natural-born” unfavorably.
Improving the accuracy of census coverage is one of the major goals of reengineering the 2010 Decennial Census Program. As a result of the Census 2000 Testing, Evaluation, and Experimentation Program and the Coverage Measurement Program, we implemented a research and development program to investigate ways of improving our coverage of persons and housing units in preparation for the 2010 Census. The 2005 NCT is part of this effort. Specific areas that we intend to evaluate in the 2005 NCT include improving within-household coverage and revising residence rules instructions so that they are clear and unambiguous to the respondent.
The panels in this section of the 2005 NCT are planned to evaluate the main effects and anticipated interactions of the residence rules instructions (
The Control for this section of the 2005 NCT is the experimental roster tested in the AQE in the 2000 Census. This design was chosen as the control because it out-performed the Census 2000 residence rules instructions in two ways: It had significantly lower item nonresponse, and, in low coverage areas, the rate at which Hispanics were not included on the AQE questionnaire was significantly lower than for the Census 2000 questionnaire.
The following are the features of the residence rules instructions that will be evaluated:
• Content, order, and wording of cues and bullets in the include/exclude lists (
• List order.
• Presentation of the basic “usual residence” concept.
• Approach to structuring the residence rules instructions (for example, using an alternative approach that eliminates the include/exclude lists and relies instead on explaining the basic concept behind the lists).
The Coverage Followup (CFU) operation will evaluate the effects of the alternative residence rules instructions on gross coverage errors.
The Census Bureau is currently conducting cognitive tests using four versions of the 2004 Census Test undercount question (Question 2) and overcount question (Question 10). The versions of the questions that produce the best results will be chosen for use in the 2005 NCT. The experimental treatments are intended to isolate some of the individual effects of each version of the coverage questions by crossing them with the different residence rules instructions. We plan to evaluate the coverage questions' efficacy in flagging potential omissions or erroneous enumerations by implementing the CFU operation.
The questionnaire for this panel will have design changes intended to make it easier to use. The changes that this questionnaire will test include:
• Color as a navigational tool.
• Lightly embedded text that describes what should be entered in response boxes.
• Consistent formats between check boxes and write-in answer fields (for example, all answer fields will be outlined with a strong black line). Using consistent formats for all answer fields is intended to help respondents identify all fields where a response is required.
The 2005 NCT will include a bilingual English/Spanish questionnaire panel in an effort to improve self-response in the growing number of households in which Spanish is a primary language. We plan to implement an English/Spanish questionnaire mailout treatment that is intended to evaluate the effect of a bilingual questionnaire on response rates, public reaction, and data quality.
All respondents (including those in the Language panel) will have the opportunity to respond via the Internet, but while the general content of the Internet questionnaire will be the same as other test questionnaires, it is not planned to mirror the exact wording of any one specific paper questionnaire. Instead, the Internet Questionnaire will be designed using questions from several of the 2005 NCT questionnaires and rewording the questions to reflect the wording that works best for this response mode.
Respondents who ask to respond via the Internet (including those in the language panel) will be randomly assigned to answer either a person-based or a topic-based format. In the person-based approach, responses for all items (
In late August, we will mail an advance letter to a national sample of about 420,000 households. This letter will explain why we are conducting the mandatory 2005 NCT. The letter also will assure respondents that their answers are confidential. We will inform them of the measures we take to keep their personal information secure. The 2005 NCT questionnaires will be mailed approximately a week later. Respondents will be asked to mail back their completed questionnaires or respond via the Internet by Census Day (September 15, 2005). Early in September, we will send reminder/thank you postcards thanking those who have already responded and asking non-respondents to send in their questionnaires or reply via the Internet. As part of the Census Bureau's efforts to improve response rates and contain costs, most nonrespondents will receive replacement questionnaires a few days after Census Day. Households assigned to the panel for which the experimental treatment consists of a letter in lieu of a replacement questionnaire will not receive the second questionnaire.
The Coverage Followup (CFU) operation is scheduled to begin in December. The CFU operation will obtain additional information by telephone from a sample of respondents in order to evaluate the residence rules instructions and coverage questions. Approximately six months after Census Day, we will begin formal evaluations of population and housing content, coverage, language, race and ethnicity, and self-response options.
All three experiments tested combinations or “packages” of design features, rather than testing each design change separately in a controlled fashion that would permit inferences about their individual effects. Thus, firm conclusions only were drawn about the combined effect of multiple design features. This is an important limitation of all three experiments. The three experiments were:
• 1.1 Experiment A: Effects of Altering the Design of Branching Instructions on Navigational Performance.
• 1.2 Experiment B: An Experiment to Improve Coverage Through Revised Roster Instructions.
• 1.3 Experiment C: Questionnaire Effects on Reporting of Race and Hispanic Origin: Results of a Replication of the 1990 Mail Short Form in Census 2000.
The report describing the experiment is located at the following address:
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
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.
The Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC) will meet on November 17 and 18, 2004, 9 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to information systems equipment and technology.
1. Opening remarks and introductions.
2. Comments or presentations by the public.
3. Update on Bureau of Industry and Security programs and activities.
4. Discussion on current state of encryption technology.
5. Presentation on Dynamic Adaptive Routing.
6. Presentation on Radio Frequency/Microwave devices.
7. Discussion on deemed export and microprocessor controls.
8. Discussion on plans for Fiscal Year 2005.
9. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that public presentation materials or comments be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Lee Ann Carpenter at
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on October 18, 2004, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 section (10)(d))), that the portion of the meeting dealing with trade secrets and commercial or financial information deemed privileged or confidential as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and the portion of the meeting dealing with matters the disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of an agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 sections 10(a)1 and 120(a)(3).
The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public. For more information, call Lee Ann Carpenter at (202) 482-2583.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of opportunity to request administrative review of antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspension of investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, may request, in accordance with section 351.213 (2002) of the Department of Commerce (the Department) Regulations, that the Department conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.
In accordance with section 351.213(b) of the regulations, an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review, and the requesting party must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which were produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.
As explained in
Six copies of the request should be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The Department also asks parties to serve a copy of their requests to the Office of Antidumping/Countervailing Enforcement, Attention: Sheila Forbes, in room 3065 of the main Commerce Building. Further, in accordance with section 351.303(f)(l)(i) of the regulations, a copy of each request must be served on every party on the Department's service list.
The Department will publish in the
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
November 1, 2004.
On September 22, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the
Constance Handley or David Neubacher, at (202) 482-0631 or (202) 482-5823, respectively, AD/CVD Operations Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), on June 30, 2004, Solvay requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on granular polytetrafluoroethylene from Italy. On September 22, 2004, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we published the initiation of an administrative review of this order for the period August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004.
The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) provide that the Department will rescind an administrative review if the party that requested the review withdraws its request for review within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review, or withdraws its request at a later date if the Department determines that it is reasonable to extend the time limit for withdrawing the request. Solvay withdrew its request within the 90-day period and was the only party to request this review. Accordingly, we are rescinding this review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection within 15 days of publication of this notice.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their
This notice is issued and published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4) and section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On September 30, 2003 the Department of Commerce (Department) initiated a new shipper review of Shanghai R&R Import/Export Co., Ltd. (Shanghai R&R), under the antidumping duty order on natural bristle paintbrushes and brush heads from the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering the period February 1, 2003, through July 31, 2003.
November 1, 2004.
Scott Lindsay or Dana Mermelstein at (202) 482-0780 or (202) 482-1391, respectively, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
Since the Department published its preliminary determination to rescind this new shipper review, the following events have occurred. On September 7, 2004, Shanghai R&R filed a case brief. On September 9, 2004, the Department issued its verification report on the factors of production from Zhejiang Linan Maxiao Brush Factory.
The products covered by this order are natural bristle paint brushes and brush heads from the PRC. Excluded from the scope are paint brushes and brush heads with a blend of 40% natural bristles and 60% synthetic filaments. The merchandise under review is currently classifiable under item 9603.40.40.40 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Pursuant to sections 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(B-C) of the Department's regulations, a request for a new shipper review must contain documentation which establishes the volume of the exporter's first and subsequent shipments of subject merchandise to the United States and the date of the exporter's first sale of subject merchandise to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. At the time Shanghai R&R requested this new shipper review, it appeared that the regulatory requirements were met and we initiated the new shipper review.
All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the Appendix to this notice and are addressed in the
The Department will notify Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that bonding is no longer permitted to fulfill security requirements for shipments from Shanghai R&R of natural bristle paintbrushes and brush heads from the
The Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Since we are rescinding this antidumping duty new shipper review with respect to Shanghai R&R, the PRC-wide rate of 351.92 percent in effect at the time of entry applies to all exports of natural bristle paintbrushes and brush heads from the PRC by Shanghai R&R entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption during the period of review (February 1, 2003, through July 31, 2003). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of this notice of rescission of antidumping duty new shipper review.
This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305(a)(3) of the Department's regulations. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO material or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanctions.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On September 30, 2003 the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a new shipper review of Shanghai R&R Import/Export Co., Ltd (Shanghai R&R) under the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering the period August 1, 2002, through July 31, 2003.
November 1, 2004.
Scott Lindsay or Dana Mermelstein at (202) 482-0780 and (202) 482-1391, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Since the Department published its preliminary determination to rescind this new shipper review, the following events have occurred. On September 7, 2004, Shanghai R&R and the National Candle Association (petitioner) filed case briefs. On September 9, 2004, the Department issued its verification report on the factors of production from Quingyuan County Artistic Craft and Candle Factory.
The products covered by this order are certain scented or unscented petroleum wax candles made from petroleum wax and having fiber or paper-cored wicks. They are sold in the following shapes: tapers, spirals, and straight-sided dinner candles; rounds, columns, pillars, votives; and various wax-filled containers. The products were classified under the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS) item 755.25, Candles and Tapers. The products are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item 3406.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding remains dispositive.
Pursuant to sections 351.214(b)(2)(iv) of the Department's regulations, a request for a new shipper review must contain documentation which establishes the volume of the exporter's first and subsequent shipments of subject merchandise to the United States and the date of the exporter's first sale of subject merchandise to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. At the time Shanghai R&R requested this new shipper review, it appeared that the regulatory requirements were met and we initiated the new shipper review.
All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the Appendix to this notice and are addressed in the
The Department will notify Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that bonding is no longer permitted to fulfill security requirements for shipments from Shanghai R&R of petroleum wax candles from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption in the United States on or after the publication of this notice of rescission of antidumping duty new shipper review in the
The Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Since we are rescinding this antidumping duty new shipper review with respect to Shanghai R&R, the PRC-wide rate of 108.30 percent in effect at the time of entry applies to all exports of petroleum wax candles from the PRC by Shanghai R&R entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption during the period of review (August 1, 2002, through July 31, 2003). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of this notice of rescission of antidumping duty new shipper review.
This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305(a)(3) of the Department's regulations. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO material or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation, which is subject to sanctions.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber in Taiwan. Based on withdrawal of requests for review from interested parties, we are rescinding the administrative review.
November 1, 2004.
Scott Holland, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-1279.
On May 25, 2000, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published an antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber from Taiwan.
On May 3, 2004, the Department published a notice in the
On May 28, 2004, Far Eastern Textile, Ltd. (“FETL”), a producer/exporter of certain polyester staple fiber in Taiwan, and Fibertex Corporation (“Fibertex”), a
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The Department may extend this time limit if it decides it is reasonable to do so. Because FETL and Fibertex filed timely requests for withdrawal of this administrative review by the mandatory deadline
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).
The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of this notice.
This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On July 28, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the seventh new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).
Based on the comments received from the interested parties, we have made changes in the margin calculation for the respondent in this review (see section entitled “Changes Since the Preliminary Results” below for details). However, these changes did not impact the overall weighted-average margin calculated in the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margin for the reviewed firm is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.”
November 1, 2004.
Brian C. Smith, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1766.
On July 29, 2004, the Department published in the
The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species
Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) All other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched mushrooms”; (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) “marinated,” “acidified” or “pickled” mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 0711.51.0000 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.
All issues raised in the case brief are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (
Based on the comments received from the interested parties, we have made changes in the margin calculation for Guangxi Hengxian as noted below. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the
In the
In the
We corrected the surrogate value for citric acid based on publicly available information submitted in the petitioner's March 3, 2004, publicly available information submission.
We corrected Guangxi Hengxian's per-unit consumption factor for coal and the distances reported for salt and tape based on the Department's verification findings.
We corrected a calculation error by including the total surrogate cost for tin cans and tin lids in Guangxi Hengxian's total material costs.
We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentage exists for the company listed below during the period February 1, 2003, through July 31, 2003:
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer- or customer-specific
Bonding will no longer be permitted to fulfill security requirements for shipments of certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC that are manufactured and exported by Guangxi Hengxian and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this new shipper review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for all shipments of subject merchandise from Guangxi Hengxian entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of extension of time limit for preliminary results of antidumping duty administrative review.
November 1, 2004.
Martin Claessens or Jim Terpstra at (202) 482-5451 or (202) 482-3965, respectively, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, 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 to issue the preliminary results of a review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order/finding for which a review is requested and the final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within that time period, 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 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 the publication of the preliminary results.
On June 30, 2004, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube from Turkey.
This administrative review covers a large group of production facilities and involves complex issues related to production costs and different types of transactions involving the sale of welded carbon steel pipe and tube. In addition, because this administrative review involves two affiliated companies that the Department has not previously reviewed, the Department must analyze large amounts of data to which it has not had access before now. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results to May 31, 2005. This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of extension of time limit for preliminary results of countervailing duty new shipper review.
November 1, 2004.
Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4793.
On July 8, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a new shipper review relating to the countervailing duty order on certain softwood lumber products from Canada, covering the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003.
Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination within 180 days after the date on which the new shipper review was initiated. However, when the Department determines a case is extraordinarily complicated such that it cannot complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and section 351.214(i)(2) of the Department's regulations allow the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary determination from 180 days to 300 days.
We determine that this case is extraordinarily complicated given the number of programs to be analyzed. Specifically, in this review, we are examining 12 different federal/provincial programs. As a consequence of the large number of programs being reviewed and the fact that Seed Timber is a
Notice of Issuance of an Export Trade Certificate of Review, Application No. 04-00002.
The Department of Commerce has issued an Export Trade Certificate of Review to the Export Trade Association of the Americas (“ETAA”). This notice summarizes the conduct for which certification has been granted.
Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, by telephone at (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number), or by E-mail at
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4011-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR Part 325 (2004).
Export Trading Company Affairs is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Department of Commerce to publish a summary of the Certification in the
Fresh tree fruits, primarily apples.
Technology Rights, including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets owned and/or controlled by ETAA and Members that relate to Products.
All export trade-related services, including, but not limited to, professional services and assistance relating to: government relations; state and federal export programs; foreign trade and business protocol; consulting; international market research and analysis; collection of information on trade opportunities; marketing; negotiations; joint ventures; brokering; handling; export management; export licensing; patent and trademark licensing; common marking and identification; advertising and sales promotion; communication and processing of foreign orders to and for Members; trade documentation and services related to compliance with customs requirements; insurance and financing; trade show exhibitions; organizational development; management and labor strategies; transfer of technology; transportation services, including shipping and warehousing; the formation of shippers' associations; legal assistance; foreign exchange and taking title to goods.
The Export Markets include all parts of the world except the United States (the fifty states of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands).
E. W. Brandt & Sons, Inc., Wapato, Washington; and ETAA Distributing, LLC, Wapato, Washington.
With respect to the export sale of fresh tree fruits, the licensing of Technology Rights, and the provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services, ETAA and/or one or more Members may:
1. Participate in negotiations and enter into agreements with foreign buyers (including governments and private persons) regarding:
(a) The quantities, time periods, prices, and terms and conditions, in connection with actual or potential bona fide export opportunities;
(b) non-tariff trade barriers in the Export Markets; and
(c) the sale, license and/or use of Technology Rights relating to the Products.
2. Advise and cooperate with the United States and foreign governments in:
(a) Establishing procedures pertaining to the regulating of the export of the Member's Products. For example: Quantity standards, marketing orders, and the imposition and lifting of tariffs; and
(b) Fulfilling the phytosanitary, quality and/or funding requirements pertaining to the export of the Member's Products. For example: Tariffs, weighing fees and inspections imposed by foreign governments.
3. Allocate export sales among Members in connection with actual or potential bona fide export opportunities.
4. Agree on quantities of Products to be sold.
5. Allocate geographic areas or countries in Export Markets and/or customers in Export Markets among Members.
6. Conduct marketing, promotion and distribution of fresh tree fruits in Export Markets.
7. Conduct quality control studies and inspections of goods for export at point of shipment, point of arrival, and through the retail level in Export Markets.
8. Negotiate and enter into agreements, whether or not exclusive, with providers of Export Trade Facilitation Services for the export of Products.
9. Establish and operate fumigation facilities and administer phytosanitary protocols to qualify the Products for Export Markets.
10. Operate foreign offices and companies to facilitate the sale and distribution of fresh tree fruits in Export Markets.
11. Recover administrative expenses and costs through fees and assessments allocated to each Member on a
12. Products to be exported will be primarily supplied by the ETAA and Members, with instances of Products supplied from non-Member entities. For example: To fill export sales orders, contracts and spot sales, as required.
13. ETAA and Members may exchange and discuss information on the following:
(a) Information about sales and marketing efforts for the Export Markets, activities and opportunities for sales of fresh tree fruits in the Export Markets, selling strategies for the Export Markets, sales for the Export Markets, contract and spot pricing in the Export Markets, projected demands in Export Markets for fresh tree fruits, customary terms of sale in the Export Markets, prices and availability of fresh tree fruits from competitors for sale in the Export Markets, and specifications for fresh tree fruits by customers in the Export Markets;
(b) Information about the export price, quality, quantity, source, and delivery dates of fresh tree fruits available from the Members to export;
(c) Information about terms and conditions of contracts for sale in the Export Markets to be considered and/or bid on by ETAA and Members;
(d) Information about joint bidding or selling arrangements for the Export Markets and allocations of sales resulting from such arrangements among the Members;
(e) Information about expenses specific to exporting to and within the Export Markets, including without limitation, transportation, trans- or intermodal shipments, insurance, in-land freights to port, port storage, commissions, export sales, documentation, financing, customs duties and taxes;
(f) Information about United States and foreign legislation and regulations, including Federal marketing order programs that may affect sales for the Export Markets;
(g) Information about ETAA or Members' export operations, including without limitation, sales and distribution networks established by ETAA or Members in the Export Markets, and prior export sales by Members (including export price information);
(h) Exchange information with and among the Members as necessary to carry out the Export Trade Facilitation Services, Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation; and
(i) Information about export customer credit terms and credit history.
A copy of this certificate will be kept in the International Trade Administration's Freedom of Information Records Inspection Facility, Room 4001, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of intent to prepare a draft environmental impact statement. Notice of public meetings in Austin, Port Aransas, and Rockport, Texas to conduct public scoping meetings on the proposed Texas National Estuarine Research Reserve System to solicit comments on significant issues related to the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Management Plan (DEIS/DMP). The DEIS/DMP will address research, education and stewardship needs of the proposed reserve.
In accordance with section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, the State of Texas and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) intend to conduct public scoping meetings on November 16, 2004 in Austin, Texas and on November 17, 2004 in Port Aransas and Rockport, Texas as part of NOAA's Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Management Plan (DEIS/DMP) process to solicit comments for preparation of a DEIS/DMP.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 10 am, Hearing Room E2.014 in the Capitol Extension, Texas State Capitol, 1400 Congress Ave., Austin, TX 78701. (A visitor parking garage is located at 12th Street and San Jacinto Boulevard.)
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 9 am, Auditorium in Visitors Center, University of Texas Marine Science Institute, 750 Channel View Dr., Port Aransas, TX 78373. (Parking is available at Marine Science Institute Visitor Center.)
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 4 pm, Saltwater Pavilion, 810 Seabreeze Drive, Rockport Beach Park, Rockport, TX 78383. (Parking is available at Rockport Beach Park.)
The decision to be made by NOAA is whether or not to designate the proposed Texas reserve. University of Texas Marine Science Institute (UTMSI) and NOAA are working to determine what the boundaries of the reserve will be, how the reserve will be managed, and the policies of the proposed reserve. These decisions will be made through the analysis process and spelled out in the reserve management plan.
The Mission-Aransas Estuary constitutes a relatively intact and minimally disturbed area, and is an excellent representative of the Western Gulf of Mexico with a high diversity of habitat types. The proposed site also has unique geologic and hydrological features that will attract a broad range of research interests from multiple scientific disciplines. Beginning in 2001, the State of Texas undertook a site selection process to determine appropriate areas of the Texas coast that might be nominated for inclusion in the National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) System. The extensive site selection process generated advice from public and private experts in estuarine science and input from the public.
In March of 2004 the State of Texas nominated the Mission-Aransas Estuary for consideration as the Texas NERR. In September of 2004 NOAA approved the
The Texas NERR is proposed to be administered by the UTMSI in cooperation with partner landholders including the Texas General Land Office, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Coastal Bend Land Trust, Fennessey Ranch, and The Nature Conservancy. UTMSI has developed an outline of a preliminary draft management plan. The outline specifies specific needs and priorities related to research, education and stewardship. At the public meetings, UTMSI and NOAA will provide a synopsis of the process for developing a DEIS/DMP and will solicit comments on significant environmental issues that will be incorporated into a DEIS.
Interested parties who wish to submit suggestions or comments regarding the scope or content of the proposed DEIS/DMP are invited to attend any of the above meetings.
Paul Montagna, University of Texas at Austin Marine Science Institute at (361) 749-6779 or
Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.420 (Coastal Zone Management) Research Reserves.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a three-day Council meeting on November 16-18, 2004, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The Executive Committee will meet on Tuesday, November 16 at 8:30 a.m. The Council meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 beginning at 9:45 a.m. and on Wednesday and Thursday, November 17 and 18, beginning at 8:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Courtyard by Marriott, 1000 Market Street, Portsmouth, NH 03801; telephone: (603) 436-2121.
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Executive Committee will meet from 8:30 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. to discuss the identification of terms of reference for the Council's new ad hoc Bycatch Committee. The Council will convene at 9:45 a.m. and following introductions, the Council's Scallop Committee will seek approval of initial action on Framework Adjustment 17 to the Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP); a range of alternatives will be selected which would require some or all vessels with general category scallop permits to operate vessel monitoring system equipment. The Council will then receive an update on the Northeast Region Bycatch Plan by NMFS staff. The afternoon period will include a report on the “Strategy of Sea Turtle Conservation and Recovery in Relation to Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico Fisheries” by NMFS staff. Following the report, the Council will consider and approve management actions for 2005, including a discussion of eliminating the process of joint fishery management plan development (for dogfish and monkfish). This discussion will be followed by a report by the Research Steering Committee seeking the Council's consideration and approval of committee recommendations for 2005 Council research priorities. The last item on the agenda will be a brief public comment period during which any member of the public may bring forward items relevant to Council business but not otherwise listed on the agenda for this meeting.
During the Wednesday morning session the Council will receive reports from the Council Chairman and Executive Director, the NMFS Regional Administrator, Northeast Fisheries Science Center and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council liaisons, NOAA General Counsel and representatives of the U.S. Coast Guard, NMFS Enforcement and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Following reports will be a presentation on Harvesting Cooperatives and Cooperative Management by Dr. Ralph Townsend. The Groundfish Committee will then ask for final approval on Framework Adjustment 40B to the Northeast Multispecies FMP. This will occur following the review and discussion of Groundfish Advisory Panel and Oversight Committee recommendations and selection of final measures. The Committee will then initiate a framework adjustment to reduce the expected haddock bycatch in all fisheries from the very large haddock 2003-year class.
The Herring Committee will review measures under consideration in Amendment 1 to the FMP and approve management alternatives for further analysis in the accompanying Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; management alternatives may include measures to establish a limited access program for some or all of the herring fishery, effort control measures, changes to the start of the herring fishing year and measures to establish a purse seine/fixed gear-only area in some or all of the inshore Gulf of Maine. Following this report will be the consideration and approval of New England Council recommendations for spiny dogfish fishery specifications for the 2005-06 fishing year. The Council meeting will adjourn after any other outstanding business is addressed.
Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal action during this meeting. Council 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 that the public has been notified of the Council'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 Paul
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Herring Advisory Panel and Oversight Committee in November, 2004. Recommendations from the committees will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
The meetings will held on Monday, November 15, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. for the Advisory Panel and then from 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. for the Oversight Committee.
The meetings will be held at the Holiday Inn by the Bay, 88 Spring Street, Portland, ME 04101; telephone: (207) 775-2311.
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The panel will review advisory panel policies and elect the panel chairman for 2004-07. They will review a range of alternatives proposed for Amendment 1 to the Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and provide Herring Advisory Panel comments/recommendations. Also on the agenda is the review of information and analyses in Framework Adjustment 40B to the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) FMP, review Groundfish Committee recommendations regarding Framework 40B measures that may impact herring fishing, and develop related Herring Advisory Panel comments and recommendations.
The committee will review Herring Advisory Panel recommendations from the morning meeting. They will also review a range of alternatives proposed for Amendment 1 to the Herring FMP and develop related Herring Committee recommendations and motions for Council consideration. Also on the agenda will be a review of information and analyses in Framework Adjustment 40B to the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) FMP, review Groundfish Committee recommendations regarding Framework 40B measures that may impact herring fishing, review Herring Advisory Panel recommendations, develop related Herring Committee recommendations for Council consideration.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Non-Target Species Committee will meet in Seattle, WA.
The meeting will be held on November 15, 2004, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon (PST).
The meeting will be held at the Alaska Fishery Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way North East, Building 4, Room 2143, Seattle, WA 98115.
Jane DiCosimo, Council staff, telephone: 907-271-2809.
The Committee will review proposed revisions to National Standard Guidelines and definitions of a “fishery,” Council guidance on Committee mission (non-target vs both target and non-target), Council problem statement for framework and ad hoc group suite of alternatives, draft committee problem statements for rockfish and suite of alternatives and a discussion paper of a alternative management strategies for rockfish. The Committee will develop recommendations to the Council on how to best manage non-target species.
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.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at 907-271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BS/AI) groundfish plan teams will meet in Seattle, WA.
The meetings will be held on November 15-19, 2004.
The meetings will be held at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 4, Room 2039 (BS/AI Plan Team) and Room 2076 (GOA Plan Team), Seattle, WA.
Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252.
Jane DiCosimo, Diana Stram, NPFMC, telephone: 907-271-2809.
The meetings will begin at 1 p.m. on Monday, November 15, and continue through Friday November 19.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. 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 Gail Bendixen, 907-271-2809, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Ad Hoc Groundfish Trawl Individual Quota Analytical Team (TIQ Analytical Team) will hold a working meeting which is open to the public.
The TIQ Analytical Team working meeting will begin Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. and may go into the evening if necessary to complete business for the day. The meeting will reconvene from 8 a.m. and continue until business for the day is complete on Tuesday, November 18, 2004.
The meeting will be held at the National Marine Fisheries Service in the Regional Director's Conference Room, Building 1, 7600 Sand Point Way, Seattle, WA 98115; telephone: (206) 526-6150.
Mr. Jim Seger, Staff Officer (Economist), telephone: 503-820-2280.
The purpose of the TIQ Analytical Team meeting is to review the Council action from the November 2004 Council meeting and plan the next analytical tasks.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the TIQ Analytical Team meeting agenda may come before the group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal committee action during these meetings. TIQ Analytical Team action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and to any issues arising after publication of this notice requiring emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the group's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
Entry to the NMFS facilities requires identification with a photograph (such as a student ID, state driver's license, etc.). A security guard will review the identification an issue a Visitor's Badge valid only for the date of the meeting.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at 503-820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (Committee).
Notice
October 29, 2004.
Ross Arnold, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection website (http://www.cbp.gov), or call (202) 344-2650. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel website at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
On October 29, 2004, as provided for under paragraph 242 of the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China to the World Trade Organization (Accession Agreement), the United States requested consultations with the Government of the People's Republic of China with respect to imports of Chinese origin cotton, wool, and man-made fiber socks in Category 332/432 and 632 part (“socks”). In accordance with paragraph 242 of the Accession Agreement and the procedures set forth by the Committee on May 21, 2003 (68 FR 27787), as clarified on August 18, 2003 (68 FR 49440), the United States is establishing a twelve-month limit on socks from China, beginning on October 29, 2004, and extending through October 28, 2005 at a level of 42,433,990 dozen pairs.
Paragraph 242 of the Accession Agreement allows World Trade Organization Members that believe imports of Chinese origin textile and apparel products are, due to market disruption, threatening to impede the orderly development of trade in these products to request consultations with the People's Republic of China with a view to easing or avoiding such market disruption. Upon receipt of the request, the People's Republic of China has agreed to hold its shipments to a level no greater than 7.5 percent (6 percent for wool product categories) above the amount entered during the first 12 months of the most recent 14 months preceding the request for consultations. The Member requesting consultations may implement such a limit. Consistent with paragraph 242, consultations with the People's Republic of China will be held within 30 days of receipt of the request for consultations, and every effort will be made to reach agreement on a mutually satisfactory solution within 90 days of receipt of the request for consultations. If agreement on a different limit is reached, the Committee will issue a Federal Register Notice containing a directive to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to implement the negotiated limit.
On June 28, 2004, the Committee received a request from the Domestic Manufacturers Committee of The Hosiery Association, the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, the National Council of Textile Organizations, and the National Textile Association alleging that imports from the People's Republic of China of socks are, due to market disruption, threatening to impede the orderly development of trade in this product, and requesting that an Accession Agreement textile and apparel safeguard action be taken on imports of socks. The Committee determined that this request provided the information necessary for the Committee to consider the request, and, on July 22, 2004, the Committee solicited public comments on the request (69 FR 43807). This public comment period ended on August 23, 2004. The Committee determined that imports of Chinese origin socks are, due to market disruption and the threat of market disruption, threatening to impede the orderly development of trade in socks, and that imports of socks from China play a significant role in the existence of and threat of market disruption. A summary statement of the reasons and justifications for the U.S. request for consultations concerning imports of socks from the People's Republic of China follows this notice.
Paragraph 2.B. of the U.S.-China Textile Visa Arrangement provides that if additional categories become subject to import quotas, those categories shall be automatically included in the coverage of the Visa Arrangement. This Visa Arrangement was notified to the World Trade Organization Textiles Monitoring Body as an agreed administrative arrangement on May 21, 2002. Consequently, the United States will require that shipments of Chinese socks be accompanied by an export visa and Electronic Visa Information System (ELVIS) transmission issued by the Government of the People's Republic of China. The United States considers that implementation of the visa/ELVIS requirement is in the mutual interest of both countries. Goods in Category 332 shall remain subject to the Group II limit, and will continue to be subject to export visa and ELVIS requirements. If exported on or after January 1, 2005, goods in Category 332 shall be subject only to the limit established in the directive that accompanies this notice. In order to provide a period for adjustment, the United States will allow shipments of goods in Categories 432 and 632 part that are not accompanied by an export visa and an ELVIS transmission to enter the United States if exported prior to November 28, 2004. However, shipments exported from China on or after November 28, 2004 must be accompanied by an export visa and ELVIS transmission issued by the Government of the People's Republic of China, and shipments without an export visa and ELVIS transmission will be denied entry. Socks in Category 632 (632 part) are in HTS numbers 6115.93.6020, 6115.93.9020, 6115.99.1420 and 6115.99.1820. They may be visaed as “cat. 632” or “cat. 332/432/632.“, but not at “632pt.” Similarly, socks in Category 332 may be visaed as “cat. 332” or “cat. 332/432/632,” and socks in Category 432 may be visaed as “cat. 432” or “cat. 332/432/632.”
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Category with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 69 FR 4926, published on February 2, 2004). Also see 68 FR 65445, published on November 20, 2003.
Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); and Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended, you are directed to prohibit, effective on October 29, 2004, entry into the United States for consumption and withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of cotton, wool, and man-made fiber socks in Category 332/432/632pt., produced or manufactured in the People's Republic of China and exported during the twelve-month period beginning on October 29, 2004, and extending through October 28, 2005, in excess of 42,433,990 dozen pairs.
Paragraph 2.B. of the U.S.-China Textile Visa Arrangement provides that if additional categories become subject to import quotas, those categories shall be automatically included in the coverage of the Visa Arrangement. Shipments of Chinese origin cotton, wool, and man-made fiber socks in Category 332/432/632pt.
Products which have been exported to the United States prior to October 29, 2004, shall not be subject to the limit established in this directive.
In carrying out the above directions, the Commissioner should construe entry into the United States for consumption to include entry for consumption into the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that this action falls within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
The United States believes that imports of Chinese origin cotton, man-made fiber and wool socks (“socks”) are, due to market disruption, threatening to impede the orderly development of trade in socks, and that imports from China play a significant role in the existence of market disruption. Further, the United States believes that imports of Chinese origin socks are, due to the threat of market disruption, threatening to impede the orderly development of trade in socks, and that imports of socks from China play a significant role in the threat of market disruption. Either finding supports a request for consultations with the Government of the People's Republic of China under Paragraph 242 of the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China to the World Trade Organization (“Paragraph 242”). The following facts, and others contained in this Statement, support these beliefs:
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. DoD invites comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved this information collection requirement for use through October 31, 2004. DoD proposes that OMB extend its approval for use through October 31, 2007.
DoD will consider all comments received by January 3, 2005.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0341, using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
All comments received will be posted to
Ms. Amy Williams, (703) 602-0328. The information collection requirements addressed in this notice are available electronically on the Internet at:
The clause at DFARS 252.239-7000, Protection Against Compromising Emanations, requires that the contractor provide, upon request of the contracting officer, documentation that information technology used or provided under the contract meets appropriate information assurance requirements.
The clause at DFARS 252.239-7006, Tariff Information, requires that the contractor provide to the contracting officer: (1) Upon request, a copy of the contractor's existing tariffs; (2) before filing, a copy of any application to a Federal, State, or other regulatory agency for new rates, charges, services, or regulations relating to any tariff or any of the facilities or services to be furnished solely or primarily to the government, and, upon request, a copy of all information, material, and data developed or prepared in support of or in connection with such an application; and (3) a notification to the contracting officer of any application submitted by anyone other than the contractor that may affect the rate or conditions of services under the agreement or contract.
DFARS 239.7408 requires the contracting officer to obtain a detailed special construction proposal from a common carrier that submits a proposal or quotation that has special construction requirements related to the performance of basic telecommunications services.
Department of the Navy, DOD. Bureau of Reclamation, DOI.
Notice.
Pursuant to Section (102)(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (c)), as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (PRC 21000
All written comments must be received by January 31, 2005. Public meeting dates are as follows:
Written comments or requests for inclusion on the EIS/EIR mailing list may be submitted to: Bureau of Reclamation, Southern California Area Office, Attn: Bill Rohwer, 27708 Jefferson Ave, Suite 202, Temecula, CA 92590.
Public meeting locations are as follows:
Bureau of Reclamation, Mr. Bill Rohwer, telephone 951-695-5310, fax 951-695-5319, or e-mail:
The proposed conjunctive use project would be located in the lower Santa Margarita River basin on MCB Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California. The project would upgrade an existing groundwater recharge and recovery system currently producing 7,000 acre-feet of water per year. Studies suggest that this yield could be increased to as much as 16,200 acre-feet per year. The project would improve existing diversion and percolation facilities and install new wells, an advanced potable water treatment plant, pump stations and a pipeline to Fallbrook. Potential options could involve in-stream water retention structures, reclaimed wastewater, off-stream storage, and recharge of other groundwater basins on MCB Camp Pendleton.
The purpose of the proposed project is to help meet water demands for MCB Camp Pendleton and Fallbrook, reduce regional dependency on imported water, and improve water reliability by increasing the yield of the lower Santa Margarita River basin and perfecting water rights permits that were assigned to Reclamation in 1974 pursuant to State Water Resources Control Board Order WR 73-50.
Reclamation currently holds three state-approved permits to divert and store water from the Santa Margarita River. The proposed conjunctive use project would enable permits 15000, 11357, and 8511 to be perfected, and could facilitate settlement of
The permits were originally issued to Fallbrook and MCB Camp Pendleton. In 1968, Fallbrook, the U.S. Attorney General, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Interior signed a Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement to negotiate a physical solution predicated on the construction of a two-dam project on the Santa Margarita River. Fallbrook and MCB Camp Pendleton subsequently assigned the permits to Reclamation, which had been authorized to prepare feasibility studies for the project (Sec. 3, Pub. L. 89-561).
Reclamation completed a Feasibility Report in 1971 and a Final EIS in 1976 for a two-dam project to impound, conserve, and deliver the natural flows of the Santa Margarita River, as well as
A 1994 study, with additional reports in 2001 and 2002, concluded that a groundwater recharge and extraction project (
The conference report for the 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 108-7) directed Reclamation, under the Santa Margarita feasibility authorization, to perform the studies needed to address current and future municipal, domestic, military, environmental, and other water uses from the Santa Margarita River. The 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 108-137) provided funding for Reclamation to study the feasibility of the Santa Margarita Conjunctive Use Project.
Through previous investigations, several areas of potential impact have been identified that apply to this proposed conjunctive use project. Potential impacts identified to date include, but are not be limited to, the following areas: Water quality/quantity (surface and groundwater), water rights, water reuse, fish passage, endangered species, estuarine habitat, riparian/wetland habitat, and sediment transport.
MCB Camp Pendleton, Reclamation, and Fallbrook have scheduled public meetings to describe the proposed project and obtain public input on the range of issues that should be studied in order to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed project. Each meeting will begin with a formal presentation about the proposed project from 6 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. followed by an informal open house from 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m.
These meetings will assist the agencies in identifying additional alternatives or options to meet the stated purpose of the conjunctive use project and to assist in determining issues that will be analyzed in the EIS/EIR.
In response to issues developed during scoping, other alternative means of meeting the project's purpose will be explored and analyzed in the EIS/EIR, if found to be reasonable. Federal, state and local agencies, tribes, and the general public are invited to participate in the environmental review process.
Comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, will be made available for public review. Individual respondents may request their home address be withheld from public disclosure. Circumstances may exist in which we would withhold a respondent's identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. Please prominently state at the beginning of your comment if you wish your name and/or address withheld from public disclosure. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public disclosure in their entirety. Please note, unidentified comments will not be considered.
Department of Education.
The Leader, Information Management Case Services Team, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 1, 2004.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Carolyn Lovett, Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or faxed to (202) 395-6974.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Information Management Case Services Team, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested,
Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Kathy Axt at her e-mail address
Department of Energy.
Notice of renewal.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), I hereby certify that the renewal, for a period of four months, of the charter of the American Statistical Association Committee on Energy Statistics is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Department of Energy by law. This determination follows consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat of the General Services Administration, pursuant to section 102-3.60, title 41, Code of Federal Regulations.
Ms. Rachel M. Samuel at (202) 586-3279.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice on a continuing basis to the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration (EIA), including:
1. Periodic review of and advice on Energy Information Administration data collections and analysis programs;
2. Advice on technical and methodological issues in planning, operation, and the review of Energy Information Administration statistical programs and their relative priorities; and
3. Advice on matters concerning improved energy modeling and forecasting tools, particularly regarding their functioning, relevancy, and results.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meeting be announced in the
Tuesday, November 16, 2004, 8 a.m.-6 p.m., Wednesday, November 17, 2004, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
Opportunities for public participation will be held Tuesday, November 16, from 12:15 to 12:30 and 5:45 to 6 p.m. and on Wednesday, November 17, from 11:45 a.m. to 12 noon and 4 to 4:15 p.m. Additional time may be made available for public comment during the presentations.
These times are subject to change as the meeting progresses, depending on the extent of comment offered. Please check with the meeting facilitator to confirm these times.
Ameritel Inn, 645 Lindsay Blvd., Idaho Falls, ID.
Ms. Peggy Hinman, INEEL CAB Administrator, North Wind, Inc., P.O. Box 51174, Idaho Falls, ID 83405, Phone (208) 557-7885, or visit the Board's Internet home page at
Tentative Topics (agenda topics may change up to the day of the meeting; please contact Peggy Hinman for the most current agenda or visit the CAB's Internet site at
• Presentations addressing the cleanup and closure of the Radioactive Waste Management Complex
• Develop a recommendation on orphan waste
• Federal budget process and funding available for the Idaho Operation Office
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 6 p.m.
DOE Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, TN.
Pat Halsey, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 576-4025; Fax (865) 576-5333 or e-mail:
Take notice that on October 7, 2004, American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEPSC), as agent for AEP Texas North Company (AEPTNC), submitted for filing an executed interconnection agreement (the Agreement) between AEPTNC and FPL Energy Callahan Wind, LP (Callahan). AEPSC states that the Agreement provides for the interconnection of Callahan's future wind farm generation project near Abilene, Texas. AEPTNC requests an effective date of December 6, 2004.
AEPSC served copies of the filing on Callahan and the Public Utility Commission of Texas.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on October 8, 2004, Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC (AE Supply), Allegheny Energy Supply Lincoln Generating Facility, LLC (Lincoln), Grant Peaking Power, LLC (Grant), and Colbath Peaking Power, LLC (Colbath and together with AE Supply, Lincoln and Grant, the Applicants) filed an application for disposition of jurisdictional facilities under section 203 of the Federal Power Act. Applicants request the Commission's approval for AE Supply to sell either: (1) 100 percent of the membership interests in Lincoln to Grant or; in the alternative, (2) 90 percent of the membership interests in Lincoln to Grant and 10 percent of such interests to Colbath. Applicants state that Lincoln states that it owns and operates the approximately 672 MW Lincoln Generating Facility located in Manhattan, Illinois. Applicants further state that AE Supply proposes to assign to Lincoln AE Supply's interests in an associated Energy Services Conversion Agreement dated June 13, 2002 with Exelon Generating Company, LLC.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicants. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on September 14, 2004, Ameren Energy Marketing Company and Central Illinois Public Service Company d/b/a AmerenCIPS (collectively, Ameren Companies) submitted for filing a response to provide additional information to the Commission regarding a proposed amendment to the existing electric power supply agreement between the Ameren Companies. Ameren Companies state that the filing is in response to the Commission's letter order issued September 1, 2004, requesting all data which would validate the use of the Market Value Index formula for the proposed two-year extension.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all parties to this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on September 13, 2004, American Electric Power Service Corporation on behalf of Appalachian Power Company, Columbus Southern Power Company, Indiana Michigan Power Company, Kentucky Power Company, Kingsport Power Company, Ohio Power Company, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Southwestern Electric Power Company, AEP Texas Central Company, AEP Texas North Company and Wheeling Power Company, (collectively AEP) filed a request for withdrawal of a portion of its July 9, 2004, filing. More specifically, AEP requests withdrawal of that portion of its filing which contained revised creditworthiness review provisions.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all parties to this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on October 8, 2004, Anthracite Power and Light Company (APL) filed an amendment to its September 13, 2004 filing requesting acceptance of Anthracite Power and Light Company Rate Schedule FERC No. 1; the granting of certain blanket approvals, including the authority to sell electricity at market-based rates; and the waiver of certain Commission regulations.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on October 7, 2004, Buckeye Power Generating, LLC (BPG) submitted an amendment to its August 30, 2004 filing of a Power Purchase Agreement between BPG and Buckeye Power, Inc. (BPI) in Docket No. ER04-1157-000. BPG requests that the effective date for the rate schedule comprising the Power Purchase Agreement be changed from May 17, 2004 to October 30, 2004.
BPG states that copies of the filing have been served on BPI and the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on September 10, 2004, Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc. (Dynegy) pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824d, and part 35 of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part 35, submitted for filing modifications to its market-based rate authority associated with the pending termination of its corporate affiliation with Illinois Power Company. Dynegy seeks to modify its tariff, which currently contains certain limitations on sales of capacity and energy to Illinois Power and a related Code of Conduct.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on October 1, 2004, East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. (EKPC) submits an application for an order requiring the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to interconnect the TVA transmission System with EKPC's transmission system pursuant to sections 210 and 212 of the Federal Power Act.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on September 14, 2004, Mankato Energy Center, LLC (Applicant), c/o Calpine Corporation, 50 W. San Fernando Street, San Jose, CA 95113, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to part 365 of the Commission's regulations. Applicant states that it is a Delaware limited liability company, and that it proposes to own and operate an approximately 730 megawatt natural gas-fired combined cycle electric generating facility to be located in Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minnesota.
Applicant further states that copies of the application were served upon the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on October 7, 2004, Mirant Kendall, LLC (Mirant Kendall) and Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, L.P. (MAEM) (together, Applicants) submitted for filing, a Reliability Must Run Agreement (the RMR Agreement) among Mirant Kendall, MAEM and ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) for a 19 MW steam turbine, a 22 MW steam turbine, and a 20 MW jet turbine located at a
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on October 1, 2004, the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) Participants Committee submitted the One Hundred Eighth Agreement Amending New England Power Pool Agreement (108th Agreement) which amends the NEPOOL Tariff in order to reduce to zero the Through or Out service charge for transactions through or out of NEPOOL that have the New York control area boundary as their point of delivery. NEPOOL requests an effective date of December 1, 2004.
NEPOOL Participants Committee and ISO-NE state that copies of these materials were sent to the NEPOOL Participants and the New England state governors and regulatory commissions.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on September 15, 2004, Northeast Energy Associates, a Limited Partnership, (Northeast) with its principal office at 700 Universe Blvd., Juno Beach, Florida 33408, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to part 365 of the Commission's regulations. Northeast states that it is a Delaware limited liability company engaged directly and exclusively in the business of owning and operating an approximately 300 MW natural gas-fired generation facility located in Bellingham, Massachusetts. Northeast further states that the electric energy produced by the facility will be sold at wholesale.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on August 27, 2004, PEI Power Corporation (PEI Power), tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), a Triennial Revised Market Analysis.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all parties to this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on October 7, 2004, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) tendered for filing a supplement to its revised generation market power study submitted on August 11, 2004, in Docket Nos. ER96-1551-007 and ER01-615-004. PNM states that the purpose of its filing is to incorporate into its analysis new or more detailed information included in the El Paso Electric Company and Arizona Public Service Company generation market power studies, as well as to correct data and/or calculation errors discovered since PNM submitted its August 11 filing.
PNM states that copies of the filing were served on parties on the official service lists in the above-captioned proceedings.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on October 7, 2004, Sky River Partnership filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a Change in Status regarding its application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on October 8, 2004, the above-referenced Applicants submitted an application pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act for authorization of a disposition of jurisdictional facilities whereby USGen New England, Inc., is selling, and Dominion Energy New England, Inc., is purchasing certain fossil generating assets in Massachusetts and Rhode Island and various wholesale power sales agreements pursuant to a cash sale. Applicants state that the generating assets and related interconnection facilities at the Salem Harbor Station, the Brayton Point Station, and the Manchester Street Station, have a combined net capacity of 2,834 MW, and will be owned by Dominion Energy Salem Harbor, LLC, Dominion Energy Brayton Point, LLC, and Dominion Energy Manchester Street, Inc., respectively. Applicants further state that the various wholesale power sales agreements will be transferred to Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicants. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on October 1, 2004, Wheelabrator Westchester, L.P. (Westchester) tendered for filing with the Commission an amended Uncommitted Pivotal Supplier Analysis and an Amended Uncommitted Wholesale Market Share Analysis in conjunction with the triennial market power updates filed on July 12, 2004, and August 12, 2004.
Westchester states that it has served a copy of this filing on the Commission's official service list in Docket Nos. ER98-3030-000 and ER04-1013-000.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On October 7, 2004, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Staff held a technical conference to discuss with the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) and market participants and to facilitate a better understanding of several aspects of the CAISO's proposed methodology for allocating the fuel cost allowance, including: The netting of sales and purchases, the CAISO's proposed format for submitting fuel cost allowance claims, the impact of private settlements on fuel cost allowance allocation, and other miscellaneous issues.
As previously announced at the technical conference, interested participants should submit comments arising from the discussions at the October 7, 2004 technical conference no later than October 15, 2004. Reply comments should be filed no later than October 20, 2004.
In the event that the auditor Ernst & Young has questions and concerns regarding the auditing process, it should submit them as part of comments following the technical conference no later than October 15, 2004, to provide other participants with the opportunity to comment and to allow the Commission to address these questions in a future order.
As announced on August 2, 2004, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will hold a technical conference on September 28, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. (e.s.t.) in the Commission Meeting Room at the Commission's headquarters, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC.
The conference is intended to explore whether the Commission should institute a generic rulemaking to require interstate natural gas pipeline companies and other owners and operators of natural gas storage facilities to electronically post each day actual natural gas storage inventory levels on their systems for the preceding day. Specifically, the technical conference will look into the feasibility, usefulness and appropriateness of requiring posting on a standardized basis for the previous gas day: (1) Net aggregate actual injection or withdrawal data; (2) actual total available working gas; and (3) actual total storage inventory volume. The Commission's staff will conduct the conference and members of the Commission and guest Commissioners may attend.
Discussion of the feasibility, usefulness and appropriateness of posting on a standardized basis for the previous gas day: (1) Net aggregate actual injection or withdrawal data; (2) actual total available working gas; and (3) actual total storage inventory volume. Speakers will discuss costs of daily reporting, how the accuracy of reporting can be assured, and how corrections or adjustments to reported activity would be made. Speakers will also discuss the value of daily reporting and the benefits that pipeline customers and gas traders might receive from enhanced and timelier reporting.
• Anne Bomar, Managing Director of Rates, Dominion Transmission Inc.
• Jeff Keck, Manager of Operations Control, ANR.
• Arthur Corbin, President & General Manager, Municipal Gas Authority of Georgia (on behalf of American Public Gas Association).
• Gary Chapman, Senior Commercial Representative, Dow Chemical Co. (on behalf of Industrial Energy Consumers of America).
Speakers are asked to address the same issues addressed by members of Panel 1. In addition, speakers are requested to address concerns triggered by the prospect of enhanced reporting that may be germane to the often differing obligations and business purposes of intrastate pipelines and local distribution companies relative to interstate pipeline companies. These concerns may include gas purchase activities and the legal authority of the Commission to impose enhanced reporting requirements on intrastate pipelines and local distribution companies that provide service pursuant to subpart C of part 284 of the Commission's regulations.
• Thomas Pearce, Chair of the Gas Staff Subcommittee of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC).
• Rick Daniel, President, EnCana Gas Storage.
• Leonard Gilmore, Manager of Pipeline Regulation and Supply Planning, Northern Illinois Gas Company.
• David Taylor, Director of Gas Operations, Southern California Gas Company.
• Tim Oaks, Manager of Federal Regulatory Affairs & Contract Administration, UGI Utilities, Inc. (on behalf of the American Gas Association).
Will daily posting contribute to market efficiency and reduce price volatility which occurs immediately following the EIA's release of its weekly storage report? Speakers will also discuss the value/benefits of enhanced reporting. Speakers will further discuss how storage inventory information is used and how that use might change with enhanced reporting.
• Robert Levin, Senior Vice President & Chief Economist, NYMEX Research Department.
• Rebecca Followill, Vice President, Howard Weil.
• Jim Avioli, Assets Manager—Natural Gas Storage, Unocal Midstream & Trade (on behalf of Natural Gas Supply Association).
• Martin Marz, Manager of Regulatory Affairs, BP Amoco.
• Arthur Gelber, President, Gelber and Associates.
As noted in the August 2, 2004, announcement of this conference, there is no charge to attend and no requirement to register in advance. The conference will be transcribed. Those interested in acquiring the transcript should contact Ace Reporters at (202) 347-3700 or (800) 336-6646. Transcripts will be placed in the public record ten days after the Commission receives them.
Capitol Connection offers the opportunity for remote listening and viewing of the conference. It is available for a fee, live over the Internet, by phone or via satellite. Persons interested in receiving the broadcast or who need information on making arrangements should contact David Reininger or Julia Morelli at Capitol Connection at (703) 993-3100 as soon as possible or visit the Capitol Connection Web site at
By order dated June 18, 2004, the Commission acted on certain issues remanded to it by the court in
By separate notice also dated June 18, the Commission stated that the form would be finalized in a technical conference. On August 13, 2004, the Commission issued a notice announcing the final OFA form.
The purpose of the instant notice is to issue a revised OFA form, as attached. This revised OFA form is posted on the Commission's Web site at
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than November 15, 2004.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 26, 2004.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 26, 2004.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 26, 2004.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 26, 2004.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 27, 2004.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
10:00 a.m., Thursday, November 4, 2004.
Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th Street entrance between Constitituion Avenue and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.
Open
We ask that you notify us in advance if you plan to attend the open meeting and provide your name, date of birth, and social security number(SSN) or passport number. You may provide this information by calling (202) 452-2474 or you may
Providing the information requested is voluntary; however, failure to provide your name, date of birth, and social security number or passport number may result in denial of entry to the Federal Reserve Board. This information is solicited pursuant to Sections 10 and 11 of the Federal Reserve Act and will be used to facilitate a search of law enforcement databases to confirm that no threat is posed to Board employees or property. It may be disclosed to other persons to evaluate a potential threat. The information also may be provided to law enforcement agencies, courts and others, but only to the extent necessary to investigate or prosecute a violation of law.
1. Proposed 2005 Private Sector Adjustment Factor.
2. Proposed 2005 fee schedules for priced services and electronic access.
3. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.
This meeting will be recorded for the benefit of those unable to attend. Cassettes will be available for listening in the Board's Freedom of Information
Michelle A. Smith, Assistant to the Board; 202-452-2955.
You may call 202-452-3206 for a
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 28, 2004.
Federal Supply Service, GSA.
Notice of request for comments regarding a renewal to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the General Services Administration will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a renewal of a currently approved information collection requirement regarding deposit bond individual, annual sale of Government personal property; Standard Form (SF) 151.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
Submit comments on or before: January 3, 2005.
Ms. Iris Wright-Simpson, Property Disposition Specialist, Personal Property Center, by telephone at (703) 305-7011 or via email to
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the Regulatory Secretariat (V), General Services Administration, Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0058; Deposit Bond Individual, Annual Sale of Government Personal Property; Standard Form (SF) 151.
SF 151 is used by bidders participating in sales of Government personal property whenever the sales invitation permits an annual type of deposit bond in lieu of cash or other form of deposit.
The General Services Administration (GSA) hereby gives notice that it intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), for the construction of a new Port of Entry facility at Peace Arch in the City of Blaine, Whatcom County, Washington.
This project is at the planning stage and design and site acquisition funding has been approved by Congress. A public informational meeting and a NEPA scoping meeting will be held to ensure that all significant environmental issues are identified and thoroughly studied as part of the environmental analysis.
The EIS will evaluate the proposed project, including all reasonable alternatives identified through the scoping process and a no-action alternative. The scoping notification process of the date of the meeting will be accomplished through direct mailing correspondence to interested persons, agencies, and organizations, and notices in the local newspaper. There will first be an open house meeting in Blaine, Washington on November 16th, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. so that the public can review the proposed alternative plans for the new Peace Arch Port of Entry facility. Subsequently, there also will be a NEPA public scoping meeting on November 30th at 6:30 p.m. to be held in Blaine, Washington so that GSA can receive input and comments from concerned parties. Both meetings will be held at the Blaine Community Senior Center, 763 G Street in Blaine, WA. GSA will publish a public notice of the meetings in the local newspapers approximately two weeks prior to the events. Scoping will be limited to identifying significant issues to be analyzed in the environmental document and commenting on alternatives and the merit of the proposal.
Additional public meetings will be held after the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and GSA will respond to all relevant comments to the draft EIS received during the 45-day public comment period in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. After a minimum 30-day period following publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, GSA will issue a Record of Decision that will identify the alternative selected.
GSA, assisted by Herrera Environmental Consultants, will prepare the Environmental Impact Statement. GSA is the lead agency in conducting the NEPA study with United States Department of Transportation—Federal Highways Administration and Washington State Department of Transportation serving as cooperating agencies. Scoping will be conducted consistent with NEPA regulations and guidelines. GSA invites interested individuals, organizations, and federal, state, and local agencies to participate in defining and identifying any significant impacts and issues to be studied in the EIS.
The EIS will examine measures to mitigate significant adverse impacts resulting from the proposed action. Concurrent with NEPA implementation, GSA will also implement its consultation responsibilities under section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act to identify potential impacts to existing historic or cultural resources.
The EIS will consider a no-action alternative and action alternatives. The no-action alternative would continue the occupancy in the existing Peace Arch Port of Entry facility in Blaine. The action alternatives will consist of three different configurations for construction of a new Port of Entry facility.
John Meerscheidt at Herrera Environmental Consultants, 2200 Sixth Ave., Suite 601, Seattle, Washington 98121 or call 206-441-9080; or Michael D. Levine, GSA (253) 931-7263.
In accordance with section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
The full ACCV will meet on Wednesday, November 10, from 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. The public can join the meeting in person at the address listed above or by audio conference call by dialing 1-888-730-9135 on November 10 and providing the following information:
Anyone requiring information regarding the ACCV should contact Ms. Cheryl Lee, Principal Staff Liaison, Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, Room 11C-26, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857; telephone (301) 443-2124 or e-mail
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 498-1210 or send an e-mail to
Evaluation of Efficacy of Household Water Filtration/Treatment Devices in Households with Private Wells—New—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Approximately 42.4 million people in the United States are served by private wells. Unlike community water systems, private wells are not regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Under the SDWA, EPA sets maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for contaminants in drinking water. A 1997 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report on drinking water concluded that users of private wells may face higher exposure levels to groundwater contaminants than users of community water systems. Increasingly, the public is concerned about drinking water
The purpose of the proposed study is to evaluate how water treatment device efficacy is affected by user behaviors such as maintenance and selection of appropriate technologies. Working with public health authorities in Florida, Colorado, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, and Wisconsin, NCEH will recruit 600 households to participate in a study to determine whether people using water treatment devices are protected from exposure to contaminants found in their well water. We plan to recruit households that own private wells and use filtration/treatment devices to treat their tap water for cooking and drinking. Study participants will be selected from geographical areas of each state where groundwater is known or suspected to contain contaminants of public health concern. We will administer a questionnaire at each household to obtain information on selection of water treatment type, adherence to suggested maintenance, and reasons for use of treatment device. We will also obtain samples of treated water and untreated well water at each household to analyze for contaminants of public health concern. The estimated annualized burden is 300 hours. There are no costs to respondents.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 498-1210 or send an e-mail to
ACHES (Arthritis Conditions Health Effects Survey)—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Arthritis and other rheumatic conditions are among the most prevalent diseases and are the most frequent cause of disability in the United States. Health care costs for arthritis were estimated at $86.2 billion for 1997. In 2001, an estimated 33% of U.S. adults (70 million) reported prior diagnosis of arthritis or chronic joint symptoms. As the U.S. population increasingly “grays,” the economic and disability burden from arthritis will only grow.
Fortunately, arthritis can be successfully managed and its impacts lessened. Exercise, weight loss, medications, joint replacement surgeries and educational and sociobehavioral interventions can decrease pain as well as improve physical function and quality of life. Ultimately, this will reduce health care costs. Unfortunately, relatively little is known nationally about persons with arthritis or chronic joint symptoms to better target these interventions. Current national health surveys and databases have extremely limited coverage about arthritis and the myriad of issues surrounding the conditions.
CDC plans to conduct ACHES (Arthritis Conditions Health Effects Survey) to close the information gaps about arthritis. ACHES is a national random digit dial telephone survey dedicated solely to arthritis for the purpose of gathering information on symptoms, limitations, physical functioning levels, effects of arthritis on work, knowledge and attitudes about arthritis, self management of arthritis, current physical activity, anxiety, depression, and demographics of 4,500 persons age 45 years and older with arthritis. 2,250 respondents will be interviewed each year in this two-year study. The information from it will be used to better direct and target national arthritis control efforts. There are no costs to respondents. The approximate annualized burden is 1,750 hours.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 498-1210 or send an e-mail to
Indicators of the Performance of Local and State Education Agencies in HIV Prevention and Coordinated School Health Program Activities for Adolescent and School Health Programs—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This proposed project is an annual Web-based questionnaire to assess programmatic activities among local, state and territorial education agencies (LEA, SEA and TEA) funded by CDC, NCCDPHP, Division of Adolescent and School Health (DASH).
Currently, CDC does not fund a standardized annual reporting process within NCCDPHP that assesses HIV prevention activities or coordinated school health program (CSHP) activities among LEAs, SEAs and TEAs. Data gathered from this questionnaire will: (1) Provide standardized information about how HIV prevention and CSHP funds are used by LEAs, SEAs and TEAs; (2) assess the extent to which programmatic adjustments are indicated; (3) provide descriptive and process information about program activities; and (4) provide greater accountability for use of public funds.
There will be three Web-based questionnaires corresponding to the specific funding sources from the CDC, NCCDPHP, DASH. Two questionnaires pertain to HIV prevention program activities among LEAs, SEAs and TEAs. The third questionnaire pertains to CSHP activities among SEAs.
The two HIV questionnaires will include questions on:
The third questionnaire, CSHP, will also ask the questions above; however, it will focus on physical activity, nutrition, and tobacco-use prevention activities. It will include additional questions on:
There are no costs to respondents except for their time. The approximate annualized burden hours are 718.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 498-1210 or send an e-mail to
Evaluating CDC Funded Health Department HIV Prevention Programs, OMB No. 0920-0497—Revision—National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC is requesting approval for the continued use of three currently approved forms (under OMB Control No. 0920-0497) for collecting HIV partner counseling and referral services (PCRS) program data. The current forms expire October 31, 2004. This request is for clearance for use of these forms through April, 2006. The extension of the current forms will allow grantees to continue to collect PCRS data as they transition to the new Program Evaluation and Monitoring System (PEMS) over the next year. This clearance will also allow CDC to collect information on how federal funds are allocated by grantees for HIV prevention.
CDC funds HIV prevention projects in 65 public health agencies (50 states, 6 cities, 7 territories, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico) through cooperative agreements. PCRS is one of a number of public health strategies supported by CDC that is designed to control and prevent the spread of HIV.
A fundamental feature of PCRS is informing current and past partners of an HIV-infected person that they have been identified as a sex or injection-drug-paraphernalia-sharing partner, and advising them to be tested for HIV. Informing partners of their exposure to HIV is confidential, and partners are not told who reported their name, or when the reported exposure occurred. Notified partners who may not have suspected their risk can choose whether to have HIV counseling and testing. Those who choose to be tested and are found to be HIV positive can receive a medical evaluation, treatment, and prevention services designed to modify their high risk behavior, thereby possibly reducing the number of new HIV infections.
HIV prevention programs that conduct PCRS interventions can reach significant numbers of persons at very high risk of contracting HIV. The CDC requires aggregate PCRS program data to determine if interventions are being delivered as intended, gauge the degree to which program performance indicator targets are being achieved, and help agencies improve their programs to better deliver effective PCRS. Until grantees transition to PEMS, it is essential that they be allowed to continue to collect aggregate PCRS data using the existing forms.
Each health department funded to conduct PCRS will prepare and submit aggregate PCRS data to the CDC annually.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 498-1210 or send an e-mail to
2005 National Health Interview Survey, OMB No. 0920-0214—Revision—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The annual National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is a basic source of general statistics on the health of the U.S. population. Respondents to the NHIS also serve as the sampling frame for the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey which is conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The NHIS has long been used by government, university, and private researchers to evaluate both general health and specific issues, such as cancer, AIDS, and access to health care. Journalists use its data to inform the general public. It will continue to be a leading source of data for the Congressional-mandated “Health US” and related publications. NHIS is the single most important source of statistics to track progress toward the National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives, “Healthy People 2010.”
The NHIS has been in the field continuously since 1957. Due to survey integration and changes in the health and health care of the U.S. population, demands on the NHIS have changed and increased, leading to a major redesign of the annual core questionnaire or Basic Module, and a shift from paper questionnaires to computer assisted personal interviews (CAPI). These redesigned elements were fully implemented in 1997. This clearance is for the ninth full year of data collection using the core questionnaire on CAPI, and for the implementation of a supplement sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time. The estimated annualized burden is 39,837 hours.
Key Dates:
Letter of Intent Deadline: December 1, 2004.
Application Deadline: January 31, 2005.
This program is authorized under section 301 (a) [42 U.S.C. 241(a)] of the Public Health Service Act, and section 391 (a)[42 U.S.C. 280 b (a)] of the Public Service Health Act, as amended.
• Solicit research applications that address the priorities reflected under the heading, “Research Objectives”.
• Build the scientific base for the prevention and control of injuries, disabilities, and deaths disproportionately experienced in minority communities.
• Encourage doctoral candidates from a wide spectrum of disciplines, including epidemiology, medicine, biostatistics, public health, law and criminal justice, behavioral, and social sciences to perform research in order to prevent and control injuries more effectively.
• Assist students in the completion of their dissertation research on a violence-related or unintentional injury topic.
• Encourage investigators to build research careers related to the prevention of violence-related or unintentional injuries, disabilities, and deaths in minority communities.
This program addresses the “Healthy People 2010” focus area of Injury and Violence Prevention.
A dissertation represents the most extensive research experience formulated and carried out by a doctoral candidate, with the advice and guidance of a mentor (the chair or another member of the dissertation committee). Dissertation research involves a major investment of the doctoral student's time, energy, and interest and its substance is often the basis for launching a research career. This research initiative is aimed at providing students with assistance to complete their dissertation research on a violence-related or unintentional injury topic and, thereby, increasing representation of junior investigators in violence-related or unintentional injury research.
Injuries are the number-one killer of children and young adults in the United States. They are the leading cause of years of potential life lost before age 65. More than five million people in the U.S. report suffering from chronic, injury-related disabilities, and the lives of millions of others have been dramatically affected by injuries to themselves or someone they love. Funding for research to prevent these injuries falls into two categories: violence prevention, and the prevention of unintentional injury.
Deaths and injuries associated with interpersonal violence and suicidal behavior are a major public health problem in the United States and around the world. In 1999, more than 46,000 people died from homicide and suicide in the United States. Among 15 to 24 year olds, homicide and suicide rank as the second and the third leading causes of death. Violent deaths are the most visible consequence of violent behavior in our society. Morbidity associated with physical and emotional injuries and disabilities resulting from violence, however, also constitutes an enormous public health problem. For every homicide that occurs each year there are more than 100 non-fatal injuries resulting from interpersonal violence. For every completed suicide it is estimated that there are 20 to 25 suicide attempts. The mortality and morbidity associated with violence are associated with a variety of types of violence including child mistreatment, youth violence, intimate partner violence, sexual violence, elder abuse, and self-directed violence or suicidal behavior.
Violence has a disproportionate impact on racial and ethnic minorities. In 1999, homicide was the leading cause of death for African Americans and the second leading cause of death for Hispanics between the ages of 15 and 34. Suicide was the second leading cause of death for American Indians and Alaskan Natives and Asian and Pacific Islanders 15 to 34 years of age. It is important to note that existing research indicates that race or ethnicity, per se, is not a risk factor for violent victimization or a cause of violent behavior. Rather, racial or ethnic status is associated with many other factors that do influence the risk of becoming a victim or behaving violently. As a result, racial and ethnic minorities in the United States experience high rates of both violent victimization and perpetration. A better understanding of the factors that contribute to this vulnerability or protection from such risk is important to furthering effective violence prevention programs that address racial and ethnic minorities.
Unintentional injuries are a leading cause of death for Americans of all ages, regardless of gender, race, or economic status. Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death for persons ages 1-34 years, and the fifth leading cause of death overall. Nearly 100,000 people
Although everyone is vulnerable to injury, some groups are at higher risk for unintentional injuries than others. For example, among all ethnic groups in the U.S., American Indians/Alaska Natives have the highest unintentional injury death rate (
There is a critical need for highly qualified scientists to carry out research on violence and unintentional injury that can help in the development, implementation, and evaluation of effective injury prevention programs. In particular, scientists are needed who bring an understanding and sensitivity to the problems of violence and unintentional injury as they affect minority communities. The purpose of this extramural research training grant program is to attract young scientists to the field of injury prevention by encouraging doctoral candidates from a variety of disciplines to conduct violence and unintentional injury prevention research and hopefully carry this focus on throughout their careers. The number of individuals, who are members of minority groups, and who are engaged in injury-related prevention research, is currently small. This research program should also attract young minority scientists to the field of violence and unintentional injury prevention research.
Measurable outcomes of the program will be in alignment with one (or more) of the following performance goal(s) for the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC):
• Increase the capacity of injury prevention and control programs to address the prevention of injuries and violence.
• Monitor and detect fatal and non-fatal injuries.
• Conduct a targeted program of research to reduce injury-related death and disability.
Applicants are encouraged to propose studies that can feasibly be completed within the available funds and funding period. Proposed research for this Program Announcement must address one of the following research priorities in a minority community. Applications that fail to address these topics will be deemed nonresponsive.
Any research priority listed in following chapters from NCIPC's research agenda: Preventing Intimate Partner Violence, Sexual Violence, and Child Maltreatment, Preventing Suicidal Behavior, or Preventing Youth Violence. NCIPC's research agenda can be accessed online at the following address:
Any research priority listed in following chapters from NCIPC's research agenda; Preventing Injuries at Home and in the Community, Preventing Injuries in Sports, Recreation, and Exercise, or Preventing Transportation Injuries. NCIPC's research agenda can be accessed online at the following address:
Rigorous evaluations are needed to determine the effectiveness of interventions, programs, and policies addressing the prevention of violence. Experimental designs are strongly encouraged. However, NCIPC will consider other evaluation designs, if justified, as required by the needs and constraints in a particular setting.
For effective interventions, it is possible to do cost-effectiveness studies. To be comparable to other cost effectiveness studies, they should follow the guidelines in the following references: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Haddix AC, Teutsch SM, Corso, PS. Prevention Effectiveness: A Guide to Decision Analysis and Economic Evaluation. Second Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
For randomized trials, applicants are encouraged to clearly state how study subjects, whether individuals or groups, were selected, randomized, and followed through the trial. One relevant useful guidance document is Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT Statement, JAMA 2001; 285:1987-2001.
Assistance will be provided to any United States public or private institution. The institution must support an accredited doctoral level training program. The performance site must be domestic.
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.
Eligible applicants may enter into contracts, including consortia agreements, as necessary to meet the requirements of the program and strengthen the overall application.
A dissertation research training grant may not be transferred to another institution, except under unusual and compelling circumstances (such as if the mentor moves to a new institution and both the mentor and the applicant wish to move together).
The responsible program official for CDC must be informed if there is a change of a mentor. A biographical sketch of the new mentor must be provided for approval by the CDC program official.
Two copies of the completed dissertation, including abstract, must be submitted to the CDC program official and will constitute the final report of the grant. The dissertation must be officially accepted by the dissertation committee or university official responsible for the candidate's dissertation and must be signed by the responsible university official.
Any publications directly resulting from the grant should be reported to the CDC program official. The grantee also should cite receiving support from the NCIPC and CDC, both in the dissertation and any publications directly resulting from the dissertation-training grant.
It is especially important that the abstract of your grant application (Description, PHS 398 form page 2) reflects the project's focus, because the abstract will be used to help determine the responsiveness of the application.
If your application is incomplete or non-responsive to the requirements listed in this section, it will not be entered into the review process. You will be notified that your application did not meet submission requirements.
• Late applications will be considered non-responsive. See section “IV.3. Submission Dates and Times” for more information on deadlines.
• Grant applications must demonstrate an overall match between the applicant's proposed theme and research objectives and the program priorities as described under the heading, “Research Objectives.”
• Applications must demonstrate effective and well-defined working relationships within the performing organization and with outside entities, which will ensure implementation of the proposed activities.
•
• The doctoral candidate must be the designated principal investigator. The principal investigator will be responsible for planning, directing, and executing the proposed project with the advice and consultation of the mentor and dissertation committee.
• Applicants must be students in good standing enrolled in an accredited doctoral degree program.
• The applicant must have the skill and academic training to conduct the proposed research and have the authority and responsibility to carry out the proposed project.
• To receive this funding, applicants must have successfully defended their dissertation proposal. This must be verified in a letter of certification from the mentor (the chair or another member of the dissertation committee). CDC requests that if available, the letter of certification be submitted with the grant application, or before the negotiation and award.
• Applicants must be conducting or intending to conduct research in one of the areas described under the “Research Objectives” in the Program Requirement's section of this announcement.
• The ability of the principal investigator to carry out injury control research projects as defined under Attachment 1 of this program announcement. The attachment is posted along with this announcement on the CDC Web site:
Applications, which do not meet the above requirements, will be considered non-responsive.
Any individual with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed injury research as outlined above is invited to work with their institution to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for CDC programs.
Principal investigators are encouraged to submit only one proposal in response to this program announcement. With few exceptions (
To apply for this funding opportunity, use application form PHS 398 (OMB number 0925-0001 rev. 5/2001). Forms and instructions are available in an interactive format on the CDC Web site, at the following Internet address:
Forms and instructions are also available in an interactive format on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) website 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.
Your LOI must be written in the following format:
Your LOI must contain the following information:
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. Your DUNS number must be entered on line 11 of the face page of the PHS 398 application form. 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 http://www.dunandbradstreet.com or call 1-866-705-5711. For more information, see the CDC Web site at:
This announcement uses the non-modular budgeting format. Follow the PHS-398 instructions for non-modular budget research grant applications.
In addition to the instructions provided in the PHS 398 for writing the Description on page 2 of the PHS 398
• Statement of the problem;
• Purpose of the proposed research;
• Methods, including study population, data sources and any statistical analyses to be performed;
• Implications for prevention.
The Description (abstract) should answer the following questions:
• Does the Description state the hypothesis?
• Does the Description describe the objectives and specific aims?
• Does the Description state the importance of the research and how it is innovative?
• Does the Description outline the methods that will be used to accomplish the goals?
• Is the language of the Description simple and easy to understand for a broad audience?
You must include a research plan in your application. The research plan should be no more than 15 pages, printed on one side, single spaced, with one half-inch margin, and unreduced 12-point font. The research plan should address activities to be conducted over the entire project period. Use the information in the Research Objectives, Administrative and National Policy Requirements, and Application Review Information sections to develop the application content. The research plan should include the following information:
• The project's focus, a justification for the research proposed, and a description of the scientific basis for the research. The focus should be based on recommendations in “Healthy People 2010”
• Specific, measurable, and time-framed objectives.
• A detailed plan describing the methods, which will achieve the objectives, including their sequence. A comprehensive evaluation plan is an essential component of the application.
• A description of the roles and responsibilities principal investigator.
• A description of the involvement of other entities that will relate to the proposed project, if applicable. It should include commitments of support and a clear statement of their roles.
• An explanation of how the research findings will contribute to the national effort to reduce the morbidity, mortality and disability caused by injuries within three to five years from project start-up.
In addition to the completed PHS 398 application form, the applicant must also submit the following materials, attached to the application as appendices:
• A letter from the applicant's mentor which:
a. Fully identifies the members of the dissertation committee.
b. Certifies that the mentor has read the application and believes that it reflects the work to be completed in the dissertation. (Letters certifying approval of the dissertation proposal must be received before negotiation and award of the grant.)
c. Certification that the institution's facilities and general environment are adequate to conduct the proposed research.
• A tentative time line for completion of the research, the dissertation, and the dissertation defense.
• An official transcript of the applicant's graduate school record showing that the applicant has completed all required course work for the degree with the exception of the dissertation.
• A statement of the applicant's career goals and intended career trajectory.
• A biography of the mentor, limited to two pages (use the Biographical Sketch page in application form PHS 398).
Additional requirements that may require you to submit additional documentation with your application are listed in section “VI.2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements.”
For additional help in preparing your grant application please see the “frequently asked questions” section on the NCIPC Web page at:
CDC requests that you send a LOI if you intend to apply for this program. Although the LOI is not required, not binding, and does not enter into the review of your subsequent application, the LOI will be used to gauge the level of interest in this program, and to allow CDC to plan the application review.
This announcement is the definitive guide on LOI and grant application content, 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 you did not meet the submission requirements.
CDC will not notify you upon receipt of your submission. If you have a question about the receipt of your LOI or 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 submission deadline. This will allow time for submissions to be processed and logged.
Executive Order 12372 does not apply to this program.
Restrictions, which must be taken into account while writing your budget, are as follows:
• Funds relating to the conduct of research will not be released until the appropriate assurances and Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals are in place.
• Grant funds will not be made available to support the provision of direct care including medical and/or psychiatric care.
• Eligible applicants may enter into contracts, including consortia agreements, as necessary to meet the requirements of the program and strengthen the overall application.
• Allowable costs include partial salary support for the applicant; such as interviewer expenses, data processing, participant incentives, statistical consultant services, supplies, dissertation printing costs, and travel to one scientific meeting, if adequately justified.
• Applicants should also include travel costs for one, two-day trip to CDC in Atlanta to present research findings.
• Indirect costs for this trainee-related grant are limited to eight percent.
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 should be less than 12 months of age.
At the time of submission, four additional copies of the application, and four copies of all appendices must be sent to: NCIPC Extramural Resources Team, CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Address for Express Mail or Delivery Service: 2945 Flowers Road, Yale Building, Room 2054, Atlanta, Georgia 30341. Address for U.S. Postal Service Mail: 4770 Buford Hwy, NE, Mailstop K-62, Atlanta, GA 30341.
Applications may not be submitted electronically at this time.
Applicants are required to provide measures of effectiveness that will demonstrate the accomplishment of the various identified objectives of the grant. 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.
The goals of CDC-supported research are to improve the control and prevention of disease and injury and to enhance health. In the written comments, reviewers will be asked to evaluate the application in order to judge the likelihood that the proposed research will have a substantial impact on the pursuit of these goals.
The scientific review group will address and consider each of the following criteria equally in assigning the application's overall score, weighting them as appropriate for each application. The application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact and thus deserve a high priority score. For example, an investigator may propose to carry out important work that by its nature is not innovative, but is essential to move a field forward.
The review criteria are as follows:
All investigators proposing research involving human subjects should read the “NIH Policy and Guidelines” on the inclusion of children as participants in research involving human subjects that is available at
Applications will be reviewed for completeness by the PGO and for responsiveness by NCIPC. 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.
Applications that are complete and responsive to the announcement will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by an appropriate peer review
• Undergo a process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific merit by the review group, generally the top half of the applications under review, will be discussed and assigned a priority score.
• Receive a written critique.
The primary review will be a peer review conducted by NCIPC Initial Review Group (IRG). Applications may be subjected to a preliminary evaluation (streamline review) by the IRG to determine if the application is of sufficient technical and scientific merit to warrant further review. NCIPC will withdraw from further consideration applications judged to be noncompetitive and promptly notify the principal investigator/program director and the official signing for the applicant organization. Those applications judged to be competitive will be further evaluated by the IRG. These applications will be reviewed for scientific merit using current NIH criteria (a scoring system of 100-500 points) to evaluate the methods and scientific quality of the application.
The secondary review will be conducted by the Science and Program Review Subcommittee (SPRS) of the Advisory Committee for Injury Prevention and Control (ACIPC). The ACIPC Federal agency experts will be invited to attend the secondary review and will receive modified briefing books (
The ACIPC committee's responsibility is to develop funding recommendations for the NCIPC Director based on the results of the primary review, the relevance and balance of proposed research relative to the NCIPC programs and priorities, and to assure that unwarranted duplication of federally-funded research does not occur. The secondary review committee has the latitude to recommend to the NCIPC Director to reach over better-ranked proposals in order to assure maximal impact and balance of proposed research. The factors to be considered will include:
• The results of the primary review including the application's priority score as the primary factor in the selection process.
• The relevance and balance of proposed research relative to the NCIPC programs and priorities.
• The significance of the proposed activities in relation to the priorities and objectives stated in “Healthy People 2010,” the Institute of Medicine report, “Reducing the Burden of Injury,” and the “CDC Injury Research Agenda.” (See Attachment 1, Resource Materials. The attachment is posted along with this announcement on the CDC Web site:
• Budgetary considerations.
All awards will be determined by the Director of the NCIPC based on priority scores assigned to applications by the primary review committee IRG, recommendations by the secondary review committee of the Science and Program Review Subcommittee of the ACIPC, consultation with NCIPC senior staff, and the availability of funds.
Award Criteria: Criteria that will be used to make award decisions during the programmatic review include:
• Scientific merit (as determined by peer review);
• Availability of funds;
• Programmatic priorities;
August 30, 2005
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:
The following additional requirements apply to this project:
• AR-1 Human Subjects Requirements
• AR-2 Requirements for Inclusion of Women and Racial and Ethnic Minorities in Research
• AR-3 Animal Subjects Requirements
• AR-9 Paperwork Reduction Act Requirements
• AR-10 Smoke-Free Workplace Requirements
• AR-11 Healthy People 2010
• AR-12 Lobbying Restrictions
• AR-13 Prohibition on Use of CDC Funds for Certain Gun Control Activities
• AR-21 Small, Minority, and Women-Owned Business
• AR-22 Research Integrity
Additional information on AR-1 through AR-22 can be found on the CDC Web site at the following Internet address:
• AR-25 Release and Sharing of Data
Starting with the December 1, 2003 receipt date, all “Requests for Applications (RFA)/Program Announcements (PA)” soliciting proposals for individual research projects of $500,000 or more in total (direct and indirect) costs per year require the applicant to include a plan describing how the final research data will be shared/released or explain why data sharing is not possible. Details on data sharing and release, including information on the timeliness of the data and the name of the project data steward, should be included in a brief paragraph immediately following the “Research Plan” section of the PHS 398 form. References to data sharing and release may also be appropriate in other sections of the application (
Further detail on the requirements for addressing data sharing in applications for NCIPC funding may be obtained by contacting NCIPC program staff or by visiting the NCIPC Internet: at
You must provide CDC with an original, plus two hard copies of the following reports:
1. Financial status report, no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period.
2. The final performance report, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period. The final performance report will be a brief summary (2,500 to 4,000 words in length) written in non-scientific [laymen's] terms. The report should highlight the findings and their implications for injury prevention programs, policies, environmental changes, etc. The grant recipient will also include a description of the dissemination plan for research findings. This plan will include publications in peer-reviewed journals and ways in which research findings will be made available to stakeholders outside of academia (
These reports must be mailed to the Grants Management Specialist listed in the “Agency Contacts” section of this announcement.
We encourage inquiries concerning this announcement.
For general questions, contact: Technical Information Management Section, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: 770-488-2700.
For scientific/research issues, contact: Paul Smutz, Project Officer, Office of the Director, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 4770 Buford Highway, NE., Mailstop K-02, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: 770-488-1508, E-mail:
For questions about peer review, contact: Gwendolyn Cattledge, Scientific Review Administrator, Associate Director for Extramural Research, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 4770 Buford Highway, NE., Mailstop K-02, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: 770-488-1430, E-mail:
For financial, grants management, or budget assistance, contact: Pamela Render, Grants Management Specialist, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: 770/488-2712, E-mail:
This and other CDC funding opportunity announcements can be found on the CDC Web site, Internet address:
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. E-mail address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. E-mail address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
NIS is unique in that it goes beyond the abused and neglected children who come to the attention of the Child Protective Services (CPS) system. In contrast to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data Systems (NCANDS), which rely solely on reported cases. The NIS design assumes that reported children represent only a portion of the children who actually are maltreated. Following the implications of its assumptions, NIS estimates the scope of the maltreated child population by combining information about reported cases with data on maltreated children identified by professionals (called “sentinels”) who encounter them during the normal course of their work in a wide range of agencies in representative communities. Sentinels are asked to remain on the lookout for children whom they believe are maltreated during the study reference period and to provide information about these children. Children identified by sentinels and those children whose alleged maltreatment is investigated by CPS during the same period are evaluated against standardized definitions, and only children who meet the study standards are used to develop the study estimates. The study estimates are couched in terms of numbers of maltreated children, with data unduplicated so that a given child is counted only once. Confidentiality of all participants is carefully protected.
A nationally representative sample of 120 counties will be selected and all local CPS agencies serving the selected counties will be identified. Plans will be developed to obtain data on cases investigated during the study reference period, September 4, 2005 to December 3, 2005. Sentinels in the selected counties will be identified through samples of agencies in 11 categories: county juvenile probation departments, sheriff (and/or state police) departments, public health departments, public housing departments, municipal police departments, hospitals, schools, day care centers, social service agencies, mental health agencies, and shelters for battered women or runaway/homeless youth. A total of approximately 1,600 sentinel agencies will be sampled. Plans will be developed to identify staff in these agencies who have direct contact with children to serve as sentinels during the study by submitting data on maltreated children they encounter during the study reference period. In preparation for the study, letters will be sent to the directors of the selected agencies asking them to permit their agencies to participant in NIS-4, and describing the general nature of the data collection effort. HHS will issue a subsequent notice of proposed data collection for this study after data collection plans are developed.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer, E-mail address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
The SSBG program provides funds to assist States in delivering social services directed toward the needs of children and adults in each State. Funds are allocated to the States in proportion to their populations. States, including the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa, have substantial discretion in their use of funds and may determine what services will be provided, who will be eligible, and how funds will be distributed among the various services. State or local SSBG agencies (
States are required to report their annual SSBG expenditures on a standard postexpenditure report, which includes a yearly total of adults and children served and annual expenditures in each of 29 service categories. Reporting requirements for SSBG were originally described in the Federal Register, Volume 58, Number 218, on Monday, November 15, 1993. The report is due either 6 months after the end of the reporting period or at the time the State submits the preexpenditure report for the reporting period beginning after that 6 month period. The report must address: (1) The number of individuals (as well as number of children and number of adults) who receive services paid for in whole or in part with Federal funds under the Social Services Block Grant; (2) The amount of Social Services Block Grant funds spent in providing each service; (3) The total amount of Federal, State, and local funds spent in providing each service, including Social Services Block Grant funds; and (4) The method(s) by which each service is provided, showing separately the services provided by public agencies and private agencies.
Information collected on the postexpenditure report is analyzed and described in an annual report on SSBG expenditures and recipients produced by the Office of Community Services. The information contained in this report is used to establish how SSBG funding is used for the provision of services in each State to each of many specific populations of needy individuals.
In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20477, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. E-mail address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Draft Guidance for Industry on Pharmacokinetics in Pregnancy—Study Design, Data Analysis, and Impact on Dosing and Labeling.” This guidance discusses agency recommendations on issues to consider when designing and
Submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance by January 3, 2005. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information (HFD-240), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, or the Office of Communications, Training, and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
Kathleen Uhl, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-020), Food and Drug Administration, 5515 Security Lane, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-443-5157.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Draft Guidance for Industry on Pharmacokinetics in Pregnancy—Study Design, Data Analysis, and Impact on Dosing and Labeling.” This guidance is intended to provide recommendations to sponsors and investigators on how to design, conduct, and assess studies investigating the influence of pregnancy on the pharmacokinetics, and where appropriate, the pharmacodynamics of drugs or biologic products. During the clinical development of most products, pregnant women are actively excluded from trials, and, if pregnancy does occur during a trial, the usual procedure is to discontinue treatment and drop the patient from the study. Consequently, at the time of a drug's initial marketing, except for products developed to treat conditions specific to pregnancy, there are seldom meaningful human data on the appropriate dosage and frequency of administration during pregnancy. Even after years of marketing, data in product labels regarding PK and dose adjustments during pregnancy rarely provide more information for appropriate prescribing in pregnancy than what was available at the time of initial marketing.
The information in this guidance is intended to promote an increase in the amount of useful data concerning how drug kinetics are affected by pregnancy and to further encourage the development of appropriate therapeutic treatments for pregnant women. Topics covered include ethical considerations associated with conducting PK studies in pregnant women, study design, data analysis, labeling, and considerations for future research. The agency recommends using this guidance in conjunction with other pharmacological and clinical literature on the design, conduct, and interpretation of PK studies. Because the conduct of studies in pregnant women requires specialized knowledge in a variety of areas, investigators designing such studies are encouraged to obtain advice from experts in fields such as obstetrics, pediatrics, pharmacology, clinical pharmacology, pharmacometrics, statistics, and other applicable disciplines.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) and Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS), announce the availability of FY 2005 funds for a Historically Black Colleges and Universities National Resource Center (HBCU-NRC) for Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service System Infrastructure Development. A synopsis of this Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), as well as many other Federal government funding opportunities, are also available at the Internet site:
For complete instructions, potential applicants must obtain a copy of SAMHSA's standard Infrastructure Grants Program Announcement, INF-05 PA, and the PHS 5161-1 (Rev. 7/00) application form before preparing and submitting an application. The INF-05 PA describes the general program design and provides instructions for applying for all SAMHSA Infrastructure Grants, including the Historically Black Colleges and Universities National Resource Center for Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service System Infrastructure Development. SAMHSA's Infrastructure Grants provide funds to
Sections 509 and 520A of the Public Health Service Act, as amended and subject to the availability of funds.
The Historically Black Colleges and Universities National Resource Center for Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service System Infrastructure Development (HBCU-NRC) is one of SAMHSA's Infrastructure Grants. The purpose of the HBCU-NRC cooperative agreement is to provide funds to support an innovative national resource center dedicated to the following 3 goals: (1) Establishing a national network of HBCUs to facilitate collaboration among the 104 HBCU institutions; (2) supporting culturally appropriate substance abuse treatment and mental health disorders prevention and treatment student health services and wellness needs on HBCU campuses; and (3) facilitating the design of accredited courses, minors/majors and undergraduate and graduate degree programs that adapt State requirements and encourage student interest in substance abuse and mental health.
Applications should reflect a program that achieves these goals and may propose any of the activities listed under Section I-2.1 Allowable Activities of the INF-05 PA. However, the successful applicant must undertake the following required activities:
• Establish and manage a viable structure to serve all 104 HBCU institutions.
• Support the annual Dr. Lonnie E. Mitchell Substance Abuse Conference with tracks on substance abuse and mental health treatment and prevention.
• Establish a database to measure student participation and impact of the Dr. Lonnie E. Mitchell Substance Abuse Conference.
• Develop a strategic plan for the HBCU-NRC.
• Convene the HBCU-NRC steering committee at least twice a year.
• Coordinate technical assistance efforts with SAMHSA's Addiction Technology Transfer Centers (ATTCs), the Mental Health Information Network, and other appropriate SAMHSA-funded activities.
• Establish and maintain a data base of HBCUs with substance abuse and mental health curricula, programs, and faculty.
• Develop assessment models for evaluating substance abuse and mental health curricula and/or programs at HBCUs and in communities at large.
• Disseminate information about effective practices within the mental health services and substance abuse treatment fields and promote/encourage career opportunities for HBCU students in the substance abuse and mental health fields.
• Conduct on-site and distance learning opportunities to promote awareness of mental health and associated evidence-based practices.
• Pilot campus-based suicide screenings and referrals to appropriate mental health treatment.
In 1995, CSAT began providing funding to the NHBCUSAC to develop curriculum models and enhance the expansion of college degrees being offered at HBCUs that led to licensure in substance abuse and health-related academic programs. CSAT and the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) supported the initiation of the National Dr. Lonnie E. Mitchell Substance Abuse Conference that brought together researchers, practitioners, faith communities, treatment providers, government officials, and most importantly, students from HBCUs across the country to introduce them to the substance abuse field and stimulate increased awareness and capacity building in substance abuse curricula and services among the faculty. Since that time, CSAT and the NHBCUSAC have expanded their interests to include mental health disorders affecting HBCUs and surrounding communities. Accordingly, CMHS is joining as a cosponsor of this initiative.
Outreach is critical to helping HBCUs develop the capacity to address substance abuse treatment and mental health wellness, as well as improve academic programs and curricula to prepare students to earn degrees and work towards careers in the fields of substance abuse treatment and mental health. For the past several years, CSAT's support for NHBCUSAC activities has been provided on a year-to-year basis under an interagency agreement with various National Institutes of Health. Based on the growing needs within HBCU campuses to develop capacities to address substance abuse treatment and mental health, formalizing the network of HBCUs with CSAT and CMHS support is expected to improve student access to information and training, thereby furthering support efforts to establish a culturally appropriate workforce.
1.
This is a Category 2—Comprehensive Infrastructure Grant; the total award may be used for infrastructure development and implementation pilots. The allowance of 15 percent of the total grant award for implementation pilots specified in INF-05 PA is not applicable to this program. Funding requested for pilot campus-based suicide screening and referral to appropriate mental health treatment may not exceed $150,000 per year. Funding requested for the annual Dr. Lonnie E. Mitchell Substance abuse Conference may not exceed $500,000 per year. The $500,000 set aside for the conference includes a contribution from SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Prevention.
This program is being announced prior to the annual appropriation for FY 2005 for SAMHSA's programs, with funding estimates based on the President's budget request for FY 2005. Applications are invited based on the assumption that sufficient funds will be appropriated for FY 2005 to permit funding of an award. All applicants are reminded, however, that we cannot guarantee that sufficient funds will be appropriated to permit SAMHSA to fund any applications.
2.
Because of the complexity of this cross-center initiative, and the anticipation of ongoing involvement of the Federal government in the development of the program guidelines, this award will be made as a cooperative agreement. The grantee will establish a
• Comply with the terms and conditions of the cooperative agreement and collaborate with SAMHSA staff in project implementation.
• Provide SAMHSA with data required to comply with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). The grantee must meet with SAMHSA Project Officers within two months after the award of the cooperative agreement to begin discussing the grantee's evaluation strategy and how it will meet SAMHSA GPRA requirements.
• Participate with SAMHSA staff in any necessary development and refinement of HBCU-NRC policies, evaluation designs, measures, and databases.
• Keep policies consistent with SAMHSA policies on data sharing, access to data and materials, and publications.
• Attend meetings with SAMHSA as typically required of cooperative agreement grantees. These may be conducted in person, electronically, or by conference call.
• Provide funds for HBCU-NRC staff to attend relevant national meetings and conferences.
• Collaborate in planning and participate in any joint learning workshops with the ATTCs and other appropriate SAMHSA-funded activities.
• Work with the HBCU-NRC to help coordinate activities.
• Provide guidance and technical assistance across all the project's components, and conduct site visits as needed.
• Approve project implementation plan.
• Monitor and review progress of the HBCU-NRC project and make recommendations regarding moving through successive stages including its potential continuance.
• Participate in any necessary development and refinement of the HBCU-NRC policies, evaluation designs, measures, and databases.
• Facilitate the coordination of this program with other SAMHSA policies and activities, as appropriate.
• Participate as voting members of the HBCU-NRC steering committee.
• Approve steering committee structure and membership.
• Review and approve products prior to publication and dissemination.
• Approve proposed pilots and subawards.
• Consist of the HBCU-NRC Project Director, members of the Executive Board of the NHBCUSAC; two representatives selected by the grantee from among the HBCU institutions that are not current members of the NHBCUSAC; and the CSAT and CMHS Project Officers who will participate in but will not chair meetings.
• Meet at least twice annually. The first meeting of the steering committee may be convened at the request of SAMHSA Project Officers; the HBCU-NRC Steering Committee will coordinate with the SAMHSA Project Officers in scheduling, planning, and carrying out future meetings.
• Assist in the development and refinement of HBCU-NRC policies, evaluation designs, measures, and databases.
• Collaborate with SAMHSA in designing and implementing evaluation plans that will include SAMHSA GPRA goals and program specific goals.
1.
Eligibility is limited to the nationally recognized HBCUs or a consortium of HBCUs because the target audiences for activities supported under this initiative are HBCUs and HBCU students. Since there is a high concentration of African American students on these campuses, HBCUs are uniquely situated to provide the perspective regarding the substance abuse and mental health needs and issues surrounding the African American population in and around these college campuses. This initiative also supports Executive Orders 12320 and 12876 to “strengthen the capacity of historically Black colleges and universities to provide quality education, to overcome the effects of discriminatory treatment, and to provide advice to the President regarding the needs in the areas of infrastructure, academic programs, and faculty and institutional development.”
These eligibility criteria supersede the criteria specified in Section III-1 of the INF-05 PA.
2.
3.
1.
When submitting an application, be sure to type “TI 05-002/HBCU-NRC” in Item Number 10 on the face page of the application form. Also, SAMHSA applicants are required to provide a DUNS Number on the face page of the application. To obtain a DUNS Number, access the Dun and Bradstreet web site at
2.
SAMHSA's goal is to review all applications submitted for grant
☐ Use the PHS 5161-1 application.
☐ Applications must be received by the application deadline or have proof of timely submission, as detailed in Section IV-3 of the INF-05 PA.
☐ Information provided must be sufficient for review.
☐ Text must be legible.
• Type size in the Project Narrative cannot exceed an average of 15 characters per inch, as measured on the physical page. (Type size in charts, tables, graphs, and footnotes will not be considered in determining compliance.)
• Text in the Project Narrative cannot exceed 6 lines per vertical inch.
☐ Paper must be white paper and 8.5 inches by 11.0 inches in size.
☐ To ensure equity among applications, the amount of space allowed for the Project Narrative cannot be exceeded.
• Applications would meet this requirement by using all margins (left, right, top, bottom) of at least one inch each, and adhering to the page limit for the Project Narrative stated in the INF-05 PA.
• Should an application not conform to these margin or page limits, SAMHSA will use the following method to determine compliance: The total area of the Project Narrative (excluding margins, but including charts, tables, graphs and footnotes) cannot exceed 58.5 square inches multiplied by the page limit. This number represents the full page less margins, multiplied by the total number of allowed pages.
• Space will be measured on the physical page. Space left blank within the Project Narrative (excluding margins) is considered part of the Project Narrative, in determining compliance.
To facilitate review of your application, follow these additional guidelines. Failure to adhere to the following guidelines will not, in itself, result in your application being screened out and returned without review. However, the information provided in your application must be sufficient for review. Following these guidelines will help ensure your application is complete, and will help reviewers to consider your application.
☐ The 10 application components required for SAMHSA applications should be included. These are:
• Face Page (Standard Form 424, which is in PHS 5161-1).
• Abstract.
• Table of Contents.
• Budget Form (Standard Form 424A, which is in PHS 5161-1).
• Project Narrative and Supporting Documentation.
• Appendices.
• Assurances (Standard Form 424B, which is in PHS 5161-1).
• Certifications (a form in PHS 5161-1).
• Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (Standard Form LLL, which is in PHS 5161-1).
• Checklist (a form in PHS 5161-1).
☐ Applications should comply with the following requirements:
• Provisions relating to confidentiality, participant protection and the protection of human subjects, as indicated in the INF-05 PA.
• Budgetary limitations as indicated in Sections I, II, and IV-5 of the INF-05 PA.
• Documentation of nonprofit status as required in the PHS 5161-1.
☐ Pages should be typed single-spaced in black ink with one column per page. Pages should not have printing on both sides.
☐ Please number pages consecutively from beginning to end so that information can be located easily during review of the application. The cover page should be page 1, the abstract page should be page 2, and the table of contents page should be page 3. Appendices should be labeled and separated from the Project Narrative and budget section, and the pages should be numbered to continue the sequence.
☐ The page limits for Appendices stated in the specific funding announcement should not be exceeded.
☐ Send the original application and two copies to the mailing address in the funding announcement. Please do not use staples, paper clips, and fasteners. Nothing should be attached, stapled, folded, or pasted. Do not use heavy or lightweight paper, or any material that cannot be copied using automatic copying machines. Odd-sized and oversized attachments such as posters will not be copied or sent to reviewers. Do not include videotapes, audiotapes, or CD-ROMs.
3.
4.
5.
1.
The HBCU-NRC grantee will be required to report quarterly on their progress in meeting the Required Activities in Section I. Funding Opportunity Description of this NOFA as well as any other activities proposed in the application. At present, performance measures for these required activities have not been established. In “Section D. Evaluation and Data,” applicants must describe their current ability to collect and report data on their progress in meeting the Required Activities and any other proposed activities. Applicants may also propose performance measures to be considered by SAMHSA. The HBCU-NRC steering committee will work to build consensus around a common set of performance measures aligned with the Required Activities and program goals in Section I. Funding Opportunity Description of this NOFA. The grantee will be required to report in narrative format on the broad themes around their progress in their quarterly reports. Once SAMHSA has obtained necessary approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), further data requirements will be mandated based on the consensus from the steering committee. The grantee may choose at any time to begin collecting more specific data related to the agreed upon measures to assist in building local support for continued sustainability for their activities once the period of Federal funding ends. SAMHSA will work with the grantee to assist them in building performance measurement systems that will provide needed local policy information.
Program activities may be used to demonstrate SAMHSA's contribution to the White House Initiative for Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Outcome measures expected from the HBCU-NRC:
• Program reports and evaluations that include client satisfaction and performance with relevant Government Performance and Results Act (GRPA) measures.
• Practice changes resulting from participating in the substance abuse and HIV prevention, substance abuse treatment, and mental health wellness tracks at the Dr. Lonnie E. Mitchell Substance Abuse Conference.
• An increase in the number of HBCUs that will make substance abuse and mental health a major part of their student orientations by 25% in year 2 and 50% in year 3 relative to the baseline estimate in year 1 of the project.
• An increase in the number of HBCUs that offer courses, concentrations, minors and/or majors in the fields of substance abuse and/or addiction and mental health by 15% in year 2 and 30% in year 3 relative to the baseline estimate in year 1 of the project.
• Number of referrals to mental health treatment as a result of suicide screenings.
2.
Award administration information, including award notices, administrative and national policy requirements, and reporting requirements are available in the INF-05 PA in Section VI. SAMHSA's standard terms and conditions are available at
The HBCU-NRC program requires reporting in addition to that outlined in Section VI-3 Reporting Requirements of the INF-05 PA. The HBCU-NRC is expected to provide the following types of reports:
• Quarterly progress reports.
• Annual progress and fiscal reports.
• Final summary report at the end of the 3-year cycle.
• Periodic delivery of electronic copies of contact and service data.
Additional reports may be required on special projects and activities (
For questions concerning program issues contact:
For questions on grants management issues contact: Kimberly Pendleton, SAMHSA/Division of Grants Management, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Room 7-1097, Rockville, MD 20857. 240-276-1421; e-mail:
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of open meeting.
FEMA announces the following open meeting.
This meeting will be open to the public with limited seating available on a first-come, first-served basis. See the Response and Security Procedures below. For those driving, parking is complimentary. If you are interested in taking METRO, blue line, and need shuttle service from/to METRO/NTIS, please notify Ms. Patti Roman when following the response procedures below.
In accordance with Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Carrizo Plain National Monument Advisory Committee will meet as indicated below:
The meeting will be held on Saturday, December 11, 2004, at the Carrisa Elementary School on Highway 58. The school is located approximately 2 miles to the NW of the Soda Lake Road turn-off on Hwy. 58. The meeting will begin at 10 a.m. and finish at 5 p.m. There will be a public comment period from 3-4 p.m. Please bring your own sack lunch.
The nine-member Carrizo Plain National Monument Advisory Committee advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of public land issues associated with the public land management in the Carrizo Plain National Monument in Central California. At this meeting, Monument staff will present updated information on the progress on the draft Carrizo Plain National Monument Resource Management Plan, and discuss other coordination opportunities. This meeting is open to the public, who may present written or verbal comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment, and the time available, the time allotted for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations should contact BLM as indicated below.
Bureau of Land Management, Attention: Marlene Braun, Monument Manager, 3801 Pegasus Drive, Bakersfield, CA, 93308. Phone at (661) 391-6119 or e-mail at:
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Coeur d'Alene District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
December 2 and 3, 2004. The meeting will be held in the conference room at Coffeeville located at 1710 North 4th Street in Coeur d'Alene on December 2nd from 10:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on December 3rd from 8 a.m. to about 2 p.m. The public comment period will be from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. on December 3, 2004.
Stephanie Snook, RAC Coordinator, BLM Coeur d'Alene District, 1808 N. Third Street, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 or telephone (208) 769-5004.
The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Idaho. The agenda for the December 2 and 3, 2004, meeting will include: Election of officers, an update on the Idaho BLM Reorganization, an overview of the Coeur d'Alene District programs, reports on past RAC meetings and an update on the Resource Management Plans being prepared for the Coeur d'Alene and Cottonwood Field Offices.
All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on November 3, 2003 (68 FR 62322), and determined on February 6, 2004, that it would conduct full reviews (69 FR 7793, February 19, 2004). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's reviews and of a public hearing 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 reviews to the Secretary of Commerce on October 28, 2004. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3731 (October 2004), entitled
By order of the Commission.
Department of Justice, United States Parole Commission.
10:30 a.m., Monday, November 8, 2004.
5550 Friendship Boulevard, 4th Floor, Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815.
Open.
The meeting is being held to discuss and vote on rule amendments that would extend an administrative appeal procedure to revoked District of Columbia parolees and allow revocation decisions for such parolees to be made, in most cases, by one Parole Commissioner.
Pamela Posch, Office of the General Counsel, United States Parole Commission, (301) 492-5959.
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice; correction.
The Employment and Training Administration published a document in the
Kevin Brumback, Grants Management Specialist, Division of Federal Assistance, (202) 693-3381.
In the
B.
On page 56087, in the third column, is corrected to read:
C.
Notice to extend current collection.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
Comments are to be submitted by January 3, 2005.
Comments are to be submitted to Paul Robertson, Regulatory Specialist, Office of Agency Management and Budget, Veterans' Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-1312, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210. Electronic mail (e-mail) is the preferred method for submitting comments. Comments must be clearly identified as pertaining to this
Contact Robert Wilson, Division of
Copies of the referenced information collection request are available for inspection and copying through the Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) and will be mailed to persons who request copies by telephoning Robert Wilson at (202) 693-4719.
The Federal Contractor Veterans Employment Report VETS-100, as administered by the U.S. Department of Labor, is used to facilitate Federal contractor and subcontractor reporting of their employment and new hiring activity. Employers with Federal contracts awarded before December 1, 2003, are to follow the reporting guidance found in 41 CFR-250. Title 38 U.S.C. 4212 (d) was amended by the Veterans' Employment Opportunities Act on October 31, 1998, and now requires the collection of information from entities holding contracts of $25,000 or more with Federal maximum and minimum number of employees employed by the contractor at each hiring location. Employers with contracts of $25,000 or more that were awarded by the Federal government before December 1, 2003, are required to report the employment of targeted veterans on the VETS-100 Report. Departments or agencies to report annually on (a) the number of current employees in each job category and at each hiring location who are special disabled veterans, the number who are veterans of the Vietnam era, and the number who are other eligible veterans who served on active duty during a war or a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized; (b) the total number of employees hiring during the report period and of those, the number of special disabled, the number who are veterans of the Vietnam era, and the number who are other veterans; and the maximum and minimum number of employees employed by the contractor at each hiring location.
Currently VETS is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection request for the Federal Contractor Veterans' Employment Report VETS-100. The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
This notice requests the Office of Management and Budget approval for the paperwork requirements for the Federal Contractor Veterans Employment Report VETS-100.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the agency's request for OMB approval of the information collection request. Comments will become a matter of public record.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee) to withdraw its March 10, 2004, application for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-90 for the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, located in Rhea County, Tennessee.
The proposed amendment would have revised the allowable value as shown in Technical Specification table 3.3.8-1, “Auxilary Building Gas Treatment System (ABGTS) Actuation Instrumentation,” for the Spent Fuel Pool radiation monitors.
The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated March 10, 2004, and the licensee's letter dated September 24, 2004, which withdrew the application for license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of Availability.
Kathy Modes, Materials Security & Industrial Branch , Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, telephone (610) 337-5251, fax (610) 337-5269; or by e-mail:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is terminating Materials License No. 29-05260-13 issued to ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company, and authorizing release of its facility in Annandale, New Jersey for unrestricted use. NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The license will be terminated following the publication of this Notice.
The purpose of the action is to authorize the release of the licensee's Annandale, New Jersey facility for unrestricted use. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company (ExxonMobil) has been authorized by NRC since June 30, 1986, to use radioactive materials for research and development purposes at the Annandale, New Jersey site. On December 18, 2003, ExxonMobil requested that NRC release the facility for unrestricted use. ExxonMobil has conducted surveys of the facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the license termination criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release.
NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the license amendment. The facility was remediated and surveyed prior to the licensee requesting the license amendment. The NRC staff has reviewed the information and final status survey submitted by ExxonMobil. Based on the reviews, the staff has determined that there are no additional remediation activities necessary to complete the proposed action. Therefore, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the facility and concluded that since the residual radioactivity meets the requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20, a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.
The staff has prepared the EA (summarized above) in support of the termination of the license and release of the facility for unrestricted use. The NRC staff has evaluated ExxonMobil's request and the results of the surveys and has concluded that the completed action complies with the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has found that the environmental impacts from the action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by NUREG-1496, Volumes 1-3, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Facilities” (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). On the basis of the EA, the NRC has concluded that the environmental impacts from the action are expected to be insignificant and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the action.
Documents related to this action, including the application for the license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at
These documents may be viewed electronically at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. The PDR is open from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Request for public comment.
Nearly 5 years have elapsed since the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) implemented its revised Reactor Oversight Process (ROP). The NRC is currently soliciting comments from members of the public, licensees, and interest groups related to the implementation of the ROP. This solicitation will provide insights into the self-assessment process and a summary of the feedback will be included in the annual ROP self-assessment report to the Commission.
The comment period expires on December 16, 2004. The NRC will consider comments received after this date if it is practical to do so, but is only able to ensure consideration of comments received on or before this date.
Completed questionnaires and/or comments may be e-mailed to
Documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are
Ms. Serita Sanders, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (Mail Stop: OWFN 7A15), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001. Ms. Sanders can also be reached by telephone at 301-415-2956 or by e-mail at
The mission of the NRC is to regulate the civilian uses of nuclear materials in the United States to protect the health and safety of the public and the environment, and to promote the common defense and security by preventing the proliferation of nuclear material. This mission is accomplished through the following activities:
• License nuclear facilities and the possession, use, and disposal of nuclear materials.
• Develop and implement requirements governing licensed activities.
• Inspect and enforce licensee activities to ensure compliance with these requirements and the law.
While the NRC's responsibility is to monitor and regulate licensees' performance, the primary responsibility for safe operation and handling of nuclear materials rests with each licensee.
As the nuclear industry in the United States has matured for more than 27 years, the NRC and its licensees have learned much about how to safely operate nuclear facilities and handle nuclear materials. In April 2000, the NRC began to implement more effective and efficient inspection, assessment, and enforcement approaches, which apply insights from these years of regulatory oversight and nuclear facility operation. Key elements of the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) include NRC inspection procedures, plant performance indicators, a significance determination process, and an assessment program that incorporates various risk-informed thresholds to help determine the level of NRC oversight and enforcement. Since ROP development began in 1998, the NRC has frequently communicated with the public by various initiatives: conducting public meetings in the vicinity of each licensed commercial nuclear power plant, issuing FRNs soliciting feedback on the ROP, publishing press releases about the new process, conducting multiple public workshops, placing pertinent background information in the NRC's Public Document Room, and establishing an NRC Web site containing easily accessible information about the ROP and licensee performance.
The NRC continues to be interested in receiving feedback from members of the public, various public stakeholders, and industry groups on their insights regarding the CY 2004 implementation of the ROP. In particular, the NRC is seeking responses to the questions listed below, which will provide important information that the NRC can use in ongoing program improvement. A summary of the feedback obtained will be provided to the Commission and included in the annual ROP self-assessment report.
This solicitation of public comments has been issued each year since ROP implementation in 2000. In previous years, the question had been free-form in nature requesting written responses. Although written responses are still encouraged, we have added specific choices to best describe your experience to enable us to more objectively determine your level of satisfaction.
In addition, we are asking for feedback under distinct time frames to enable us to trend your level of satisfaction: During the initial year of ROP implementation (2000), and current ROP implementation. In future years, we will ask for feedback only for current ROP implementation.
As previously discussed, we are asking for feedback under distinct time frames to enable us to trend your level of satisfaction. The questionnaire has been modified to benchmark the results. In responding to these questions, please consider your experiences using the NRC oversight process during initial implementation (first year of ROP) and current ROP implementation.
Shade in the circle that most applies to your experiences as follows: (1) Very much (2) somewhat (3) neutral (4) somewhat less than needed (5) far less than needed
If there are experiences that are rated as unsatisfied, or if you have specific thoughts or concerns, please elaborate in the “Comments” section that follows the question and offer your opinion for possible improvements. If there are experiences or opinions that you would like to express that cannot be directly captured by the questions, document that in question number 20.
(As appropriate, please provide specific examples and suggestions for improvement.)
(1) Does the Performance Indicator Program promote plant safety?
(2) Does appropriate overlap exist between the Performance Indicator Program and the Inspection Program?
(3) Is the reporting of PI data efficient?
(4) Does NEI 99-02, “Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline” provide clear guidance regarding Performance Indicators?
(5) Is the information in the inspection reports useful to you?
(6) Does the Significance Determination Process yield equivalent results for issues of similar significance in all ROP cornerstones?
(7) Does the NRC take appropriate actions to address performance issues for those licensees outside of the Licensee Response Column of the Action Matrix?
(8) Is the information contained in assessment reports relevant, useful, and written in plain English?
Questions related to the efficacy of the overall Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) (As appropriate, please provide specific examples and suggestions for improvement.)
(9) Are the ROP oversight activities predictable (
(10) Is the ROP risk-informed, in that the NRC's actions are graduated on the basis of increased significance?
(11) Is the ROP understandable and are the processes, procedures and products clear and written in plain English?
(12) Does the ROP provide adequate regulatory assurance when combined with other NRC regulatory processes that plants are being operated and maintained safely?
(13) Does the ROP improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and realism of the regulatory process?
(14) Does the ROP ensure openness in the regulatory process?
(15) Has the public been afforded adequate opportunity to participate in the ROP and to provide inputs and comments?
(16) Has the NRC been responsive to public inputs and comments on the ROP?
(17) Has the NRC implemented the ROP as defined by program documents?
(18) Does the ROP reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees?
(19) Does the ROP minimize unintended consequences?
(20) Please provide any additional information or comments related to the Reactor Oversight Process.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget a request for clearance of a revised information collection. Online OPM Form 1417, Combined Federal Campaign Results Form, is used to collect information from the 320 local CFC's around the country to verify campaign results. Revisions to the form clarify OPM's request for budgeted campaign costs and provide the ability to create a printer friendly copy of the report.
We estimate 320 Online OPM Forms 1417 are completed annually. Each form takes approximately 20 minutes to complete. The annual estimated burden is 107 hours.
Comments are particularly invited on: Whether this information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Office of Personnel Management, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the appropriate use of technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606-8358, Fax (202) 418-3251 or E-mail to
Comments on this proposal should be received within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
Send or deliver comments to—Curtis Rumbaugh, CFC Operations Manager, Office of CFC Operations, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 5450, Washington, DC 20415.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
(1) Notice of application for an order under sections 3(b)(2) and 45(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and (2) a Commission statement that the Commission is considering clarifying the primary business test under sections 3(b)(1) and (2) of the Act with respect to health maintenance organizations and similar entities that provide managed health care services (collectively, “HMOs”).
PacifiCare of Arizona, Inc., PacifiCare of California, PacifiCare of Colorado, Inc., PacifiCare of Nevada,
Applicants seek orders under section 3(b)(2) of the Act declaring them to be primarily engaged in a business other than that of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities.
The application was filed on March 31, 2003, and amended on May 23, 2003, September 15, 2003, January 21, 2004, May 17, 2004, August 18, 2004, September 9, 2004 and September 22, 2004.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on November 19, 2004, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20549-0609. Applicants, c/o Barbara L. Borden, Esq. and Frederick T. Muto, Esq., Cooley Godward LLP, 4401 Eastgate Mall, San Diego, CA 92121.
Marc R. Ponchione, Senior Counsel, at (202) 942-7927, or Janet M. Grossnickle, Branch Chief, at (202) 942-0564 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20549-0102 (tel. 202-942-8090).
1. Each of the PacifiCare HMOs is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PacifiCare Health Plan Administrators, Inc. (“PHPA”), an Indiana corporation formed in 1981. PHPA is a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. (“PacifiCare”), a Delaware corporation formed in 1996.
2. Applicants state that each of the PacifiCare HMOs maintains a large portfolio of marketable securities and a cash position as part of its management of its primary health care operations. Applicants state that the PacifiCare HMOs historically have contracted with hospitals and physicians on a prepaid, capitated fixed-fee per member per-month basis, regardless of the services provided to each member, but have recently experienced a shift to “risk-retention contracts” under which they now bear a substantial amount of the direct risk that health care costs of the subscribers or enrollees of their health care products will differ from the prepaid or periodic charges paid by or on behalf of such (“underwriting risk”). Under the risk-retention contracts model, each PacifiCare HMO maintains a larger investment portfolio primarily because each PacifiCare HMO assumes underwriting risk that its per patient member costs may exceed its per member premiums that it sets in advance each year. Applicants state that each of the PacifiCare HMOs also maintains its portfolio to satisfy state regulatory net worth requirements.
3. Applicants state that the PacifiCare HMOs' profitability declined recently because of health care cost inflation, a lack of corresponding increases in Medicare reimbursement rates and because they did not fully anticipate the shift to risk-retention contracts in recent years when they made pricing and underwriting decisions for their products. At times during recent years, this decreased profitability caused a reduction in income from operations and an increased percentage of income attributable to the investment portfolios of the PacifiCare HMOs.
4. Applicants state that each of the PacifiCare HMOs is licensed as a HMO or similar entity in the state in which it operates and is regulated by the insurance commissioner or similar official of that state.
1. Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the Act defines the term “investment company” to include an issuer that is or holds itself out as being engaged primarily, or proposes to engage primarily, in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Act further defines an investment company as an issuer that is engaged or proposes to engage in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities, and owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value in excess of 40 percent of the value of the issuer's total
2. Applicants state that none of the PacifiCare HMOs has ever held itself out as an investment company and that none of the PacifiCare HMOs believes that it is an investment company as defined in section 3(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Applicants state that more than 40 percent of the total unconsolidated assets of each of PacifiCare of Arizona, Inc., PacifiCare of Colorado, Inc., PacifiCare of Oregon, Inc., PacifiCare of Nevada, Inc., PacifiCare of Texas, Inc., and PacifiCare of Washington, Inc. consist of investment securities as defined in section 3(a)(2). Accordingly, each of these PacifiCare HMOs may be deemed an investment company within the meaning of section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
3. Rule 3a-1 provides an exemption from the definition of investment company if no more than 45 percent of a company's total assets consist of, and not more than 45 percent of its net income over the last four quarters is derived from, securities other than Government securities and securities of majority-owned subsidiaries and companies primarily controlled by it. Applicants state that none of the PacifiCare HMOs currently are able to rely on rule 3a-1 because investment securities comprise a large percentage of their total assets. In recent years, some of the PacifiCare HMOs also would not have been able to rely on rule 3a-1 because of operating losses.
4. Section 3(b)(2) of the Act provides that, notwithstanding section 3(a)(1)(C), the Commission may issue an order declaring an issuer to be primarily engaged in a business other than that of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities directly, through majority-owned subsidiaries, or controlled companies conducting similar types of businesses. Applicants request orders under section 3(b)(2) of the Act declaring that each of the PacifiCare HMOs is primarily engaged in a business other than that of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities, and therefore is not an investment company as defined in the Act. Applicants submit that each of the PacifiCare HMOs meets the requirements of section 3(b)(2) because it is primarily engaged in the health care service business, and not in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities, and its business operations are analogous to those of insurance companies.
5. In determining whether an issuer is “primarily engaged” in a non-investment company business under section 3(b)(2), the Commission considers the following factors: (a) the company's historical development, (b) its public representations of policy, (c) the activities of its officers and directors, (d) the nature of its present assets (the “Asset Factor”), and (e) the sources of its present income (the “Income Factor”).
Applicants state that each PacifiCare HMO was formed for the purpose of providing health care services and that each has provided such services since inception. Applicants also state that each of the PacifiCare HMOs has engaged in the pursuit of providing health care services to the exclusion of other activities and that each intends to continue to engage in the business of providing health care services.
Applicants state that PacifiCare's periodic reports describing the business of the PacifiCare HMOs focus on improving net income from health care services operations and have never emphasized the possibility of significant appreciation from investment securities as a material factor in PacifiCare's or the PacifiCare HMOs' future growth. Applicants also state that the PacifiCare HMOs have never held themselves out as investment companies within the meaning of the Act and are unaware of any public representations that would indicate that any of the PacifiCare HMOs are in any business other than the health care services business. Applicants assert that press releases issued by PacifiCare and the PacifiCare HMOs concern events regarding the PacifiCare HMOs' operations and the development of new products and services and that public statements by PacifiCare and the PacifiCare HMOs emphasize PacifiCare's mission to create long-term stockholder value as a leading health and consumer services company.
Applicants state that members of the boards of directors and the officers of each of the PacifiCare HMOs generally have extensive experience in the management and oversight of health care services provider organizations and focus almost exclusively on the management of their respective managed care plans and the further development of their respective health care provider networks. Applicants also state that other than adopting an investment policy and receiving periodic reports, the PacifiCare HMOs' officers and directors have minimal involvement with their respective PacifiCare HMO's investment securities and typically spend substantially all of their time on operating activities. Applicants further state that only the CFO and/or treasurer or assistant treasurer of each of the PacifiCare HMOs spends any time on cash and securities management. Applicants represent that management of PacifiCare's investments involves the equivalent of nine full-time employees, or 0.1% of a total of approximately 8,000 PacifiCare employees. Applicants state that the other employees of the PacifiCare HMOs are involved in activities in connection with the day-to-day operations and support of a health care services provider organization, including provider and hospital contract management, claims processing, medical bills review, member enrollment, accounting, customer services, data entry and other activities.
Applicants state that each of the PacifiCare HMO's operations as a health services company do not require substantial investments in property, plant, equipment or other tangible assets. Further, each of the PacifiCare HMOs maintains a large investment securities position because of statutory net worth or regulatory capital requirements, the need to manage the risk that the health care costs it underwrites will exceed premiums, and working capital requirements. Excluding PacifiCare of California, more than 40 percent of each of the PacifiCare HMO's unconsolidated assets consist of investment securities and, in some
Applicants state that each of the PacifiCare HMO's income from operations fluctuated widely during the past several years due to the greater than expected increase in risk-retention contracts and unanticipated health care cost increases. Applicants state that less than 45% of each PacifiCare HMO's total income for the last four fiscal quarters combined was derived from investment securities. For the four fiscal quarters ending on December 2002, however, most of the PacifiCare HMOs recorded a net operating loss. Applicants state that net investment income will continue to comprise a significant portion of the PacifiCare HMOs' income as they adapt to the changing health services market and because they use their investment securities to manage the risks they underwrite. Applicants believe that their sources of revenue are more representative of their activities as operating companies than their sources of income. Applicants assert that each of the PacifiCare HMO's income from investments constitutes only a small portion of each PacifiCare HMO's gross revenue. Applicants state that for each PacifiCare HMO, revenues from health care operations represent approximately 99 percent of each PacifiCare HMO's gross revenue, while revenues from investments constitute the remaining one percent. Each of the PacifiCare HMOs expects that in the future the percentage of its total revenue derived from health care operations will continue to be substantial and the percentage of its revenue from investments will continue to be minimal.
6. Section 3(c)(3) of the Act excludes insurance companies from the definition of investment company. Applicants believe, however, that none of the PacifiCare HMOs would be considered an insurance company within the meaning of the Act because none of the PacifiCare HMOs is organized as a traditional indemnity insurance company and the PacifiCare HMOs primarily offer HMO products that are not regulated as insurance products under state insurance laws. Applicants submit that managed care companies, which developed after enactment of the Act and far more recently than insurance companies, are subject to similar regulatory schemes. Applicants believe that each of the PacifiCare HMO's operations and use of investment portfolio are substantially analogous to those of insurance companies. Applicants state that, similar to insurance companies, the PacifiCare HMOs manage the underwriting risk of excess health care costs in part through returns in their investment portfolios, are regulated under state law, and are required to maintain statutory net worth and comply with state investment regulations.
7. The PacifiCare HMOs thus assert that they qualify for an order under section 3(b)(2) of the Act.
1. Section 45(a) provides that information contained in any application filed with the Commission under the Act shall be made available to the public, unless the Commission finds that public disclosure is neither necessary nor appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors. Each of the PacifiCare HMOs requests an order under section 45(a) of the Act granting confidential treatment to information submitted in Appendix 7 to the application containing financial and other information about the PacifiCare HMOs, PacifiCare and PHPA.
2. The PacifiCare HMOs submit that the information disclosed in the application is sufficient to fully apprise any interested member of the public of the basis for the requested relief. Applicants state that from the presentation in the Application, the public can see the general nature of certain of the PacifiCare HMO's assets.
3. Applicants believe that public disclosure of certain financial and other information about the PacifiCare HMOs, PacifiCare and PHPA would cause the PacifiCare HMOs and PacifiCare competitive harm. Applicants state that they do not normally disclose specific financial information about the PacifiCare HMOs, the precise make-up of their consolidated investment portfolios and their internal investment policies. Applicants also state that their competitors would benefit from access to such information and neither PacifiCare nor the PacifiCare HMOs has access to similar information about its competitors. Applicants further state that disclosure of certain financial information regarding the PacifiCare HMOs may confuse investors because the limited publicly available financial information concerning the PacifiCare HMOs is prepared for the purpose of complying with state regulations and in some cases is not calculated in accordance with GAAP, and therefore it may be different than the financial information set forth in the application. For these reasons, applicants believe that public disclosure of the information in Appendix 7 is neither necessary nor appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
4. The Freedom of Information Act generally provides that all information provided to or generated by the government should be made available to the general public, with certain exceptions set forth in the statute. One of those exceptions is for “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.” Each of the PacifiCare HMOs believes that the information with respect to which applicants request confidential treatment falls within the exception described, and is thus eligible for protection under the Freedom of Information Act.
It does not appear that the circumstances that have led the PacifiCare HMOs to seek orders pursuant to section 3(b)(2) of the Act are unique. The Commission thus is considering clarifying the primary business test under sections 3(b)(1) and 3(b)(2) of the Act with respect to HMOs in the context of the order that would be issued to the PacifiCare HMOs.
By the Commission.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of U.S. Canadian Minerals, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board symbol “USCA”), a Nevada corporation. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of publicly disseminated information concerning, among other things, U.S. Canadian Minerals' financing and mining activities and the value of U.S. Canadian Minerals' purported assets.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company.
By the Commission.
On August 3, 2004, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
No comments were received on the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the definitions of FCQS and FPQS provided in Amex Rule 940(b) to conform them to the definitions provided in the Linkage Plan, as amended by Joint Amendment No. 13.
Under the proposed rule change, as with Linkage orders today, if an order is of a size eligible for automatic execution, the Amex (as the receiving options exchange) must provide an automatic execution of the Linkage order. If this is not the case (for example, the Amex's automatic execution system is not engaged), the Exchange may allow the order to drop to manual handling. However, the Amex still must provide a manual execution for at least the FCQS or FPQS, as appropriate (in this case, the size of its disseminated quotation of less than 10 contracts).
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission notes that the Amex adopted the current definitions of FCQS and FPQS, which impose a “10-up” requirement, at a time when it had rules requiring that the minimum size disseminated with a quotation be for at least 10 contracts. Consequently, if the Amex received a customer limit order for fewer than 10 contracts, the Exchange would disseminate the price of the customer limit order with a size of 10 contracts and the specialist or the trading crowd would be responsible to make up the difference. Since implementation of the Linkage Plan, the Amex has amended Exchange Rule 958A to permit the dissemination of the “natural size” of customer limit orders that are of a size of less than 10 contracts.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
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 CBOE proposes to eliminate the Designated Primary Market-Maker (“DPM”) participation entitlement for trades occurring pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.45A(c). Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in
(a)-(b) No change.
(c) Interaction of Market Participant's Quotes and/or Orders with Orders in Electronic Book.
(i)-(ii) No change.
(iii) DPM Participation Entitlement: [If a DPM is eligible for an allocation pursuant to the operation of this paragraph (c) by virtue of being a member of the “N-second group” as described in paragraph (c)(ii), the DPM shall be entitled to receive an allocation equal to the amount it would be entitled to pursuant to the DPM participation right established pursuant to Rule 8.87 (and Regulatory Circulars issued thereunder). The DPM's entitlement percentage is expressed as a percentage of the remaining quantity after all public customer orders in the electronic book have been executed.]
[(iv) Temporary Order Access Terminals: The Exchange will provide Temporary Order Access Terminals (“T-OATs”) in each trading crowd in which Hybrid is operational. Each T-OAT, which will be reserved for the exclusive use of floor brokers, will allow the entry by floor brokers of agency orders that will be eligible to participate in the “N-second group.” Each T-OAT will be conveniently located and will be easily accessible. The Exchange will provide in each crowd at least one T-OAT, and where necessary, as many T-OATs as are necessary to accommodate demand in that trading pit. The Exchange will continue to provide T-OATs until either November 28, 2003 or until the Hybrid system is capable of accepting orders from floor broker workstations that will be eligible to participate in the “N-second group,” whichever occurs first.]
(d)-(e) No change.
No change.
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 had 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.
CBOE Rule 6.45A(c) governs the allocation of orders resting in the Exchange's electronic book (“book” or “Ebook”) among market participants. Generally, if only one market participant interacts with the order in the book, he/she will be entitled to full priority. If, however, more than one market participant attempts to interact with the same order in the book, a “quote trigger” process initiates. Under the quote trigger process, the first market participant to interact with the book order starts a counting period lasting N-seconds whereby each market participant that submits an order within that “N-second period” becomes part of the “N-second group” and is entitled to share in the allocation of that order via the formula contained in the rule. The Exchange does not propose to change the operation of the quote trigger process other than to eliminate the DPM participation right for “N-second group” trades.
Currently, if a DPM is a member of the “N-second group,” he/she receives the standard participation entitlement.
While the Exchange is in the process of amending CBOE Rule 6.45A(c), it takes this opportunity to eliminate paragraph (c)(iv) from the Rule. Under this paragraph, the Exchange was
The Exchange believes this amendment to the quote trigger process will provide market participants with an enhanced incentive to quote competitively, which should enhance competition and provide investors with deeper and more liquid markets. For these reasons, the Exchange 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.
The Exchange neither received nor solicited written comments on the proposal.
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-CBOE-2004-64. 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 (the “Act”),
In its submission, the Exchange submitted a proposed rule change to CHX Article XX, Rule 37(a), which governs manual execution of eligible market and marketable limit orders. The proposed rule change, which will remain in effect for a 60-day pilot period expiring December 24, 2004, permits a CHX specialist, acting in its principal capacity, to manually execute an incoming market or marketable limit order in three exchange-traded funds at a price other than the national best bid or offer. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Office of the Secretary, CHX and at the Commission.
In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On August 28, 2002, the Commission issued an order granting a
According to the CHX, as stated by both Commission staff and commissioners at an open meeting on August 27, 2002, rapid-fire quotations and executions in Exempt ETFs occur consistently throughout the trading day within a range around the NBBO, rendering it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to access liquidity at an exact NBBO price point. Compounding the “flickering” noted by the Commission, the Exchange has noted a marked increased in the incidence of locked and crossed markets in Exempt ETFs.
CHX Article XX, Rule 37(a), commonly referred to as the Exchange's “Best Rule,” requires that with respect to any market or marketable limit order not executed automatically, a CHX specialist must “* * * either (a) manually execute such order at a price and size equal to the NBBO price and size at the time the order was received; or (b) act as agent for such order in seeking to obtain the best available price for such order on a marketplace other than the Exchange, using order routing systems where appropriate.”
According to the CHX, given the unique environment in which the ETFs are traded, and the difficulty that CHX represents that its specialists often encounter in accessing NBBO price points, the Exchange's Department of Market Regulation (the “Department”) believes that its enforcement of the BEST Rule must take the ETF trading environment into account when the Department evaluates the execution prices of eligible market and marketable limit orders for Exempt ETFs. The Department believes that in certain instances, execution of an order in an Exempt ETF at a price other than the NBBO may nonetheless be consistent with the specialist's best execution obligation, in light of the unique environment that characterizes trading in Exempt ETFs. The Exchange believes that the current version of the BEST Rule contains sufficient latitude with respect to an order executed by a CHX specialist acting as agent for the order,
Significantly, the proposed rule change is not intended to excuse a CHX specialist from its best execution obligations with respect to manually-executed orders. Moreover, the proposed rule change only relates to orders that are executed manually, when a CHX specialist's ability to obtain liquidity at an exact NBBO price point is extremely limited. Orders that are executed automatically will continue to be executed by the Exchange's MAX automated execution system at the NBBO in effect at the time the order is received.
The CHX believes the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any inappropriate burden on competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has been filed by the Exchange as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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-CHX-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 Government Securities Division of FICC (“GSD”) is seeking to establish a cross-margining arrangement with The Clearing Corporation (“TCC”).
In its filing with the Commission, FICC 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. FICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The Government Securities Division of FICC is proposing to enter into a new cross-margining agreement with TCC. FICC had a cross-margining arrangement in place with the Board of Trade Clearing Corporation (“BOTCC”), TCC's predecessor, through which certain Chicago Board of Trade (“CBOT”) products were cross-margined with certain FICC products.
TCC recently became the clearing organization for EurexUS and has approached FICC regarding cross-margining certain U.S. Treasury and Agency futures and options on futures products traded on the EurexUS futures exchange and cleared by TCC with certain FICC products.
FICC is proposing to enter into a new cross-margining agreement with TCC
In general, cross-margining allows members to optimize their capital usage by permitting their clearing organizations to view their positions across clearing organizations as a combined portfolio and to reduce margin requirements accordingly.
Under the arrangement, FICC and each Participating CO holds and manages its own positions and collateral and independently determines the amount of margin that it will make available for cross-margining, which is referred to as the “residual margin amount.” FICC computes the amount by which the cross-margining participant's margin requirement can be reduced at each clearing organization (
If the margin that FICC has available for a participant is greater than the combined margin submitted by the Participating COs, FICC will allocate a portion of its margin equal to the combined margin at the Participating COs. If the combined margin submitted by the Participating COs is greater than the margin that FICC has available for that participant, FICC will first allocate its margin to the Participating CO with the most highly correlated position. If the positions are equally correlated, FICC will allocate pro rata based upon the residual margin amount available at each Participating CO. FICC and each Participating CO may then reduce the amount of collateral that they collect to reflect the offsets between the cross-margining participant's positions at FICC and its (or its affiliate's) positions at the Participating CO.
FICC and each Participating CO will guarantee the cross-margining participant's (or its affiliate's) performance to each other up to a specified maximum amount that relates back to the cross-margining reduction and the results of liquidating the member's positions and ultimately its collateral. The guaranty represents a contractual commitment that each clearing organization has to the other.
A default by a cross-margining participant will trigger the loss sharing provisions of the cross-margining agreement. The loss-sharing provisions determine the guaranty payments, if any, that will flow between the clearing organizations if the default of the participant results in a loss. It should be noted that a declaration of default of a cross-margining participant by one of the clearing organizations in and of itself will provide grounds for the other clearing organization to declare the participant (or its affiliate) in default as well. If the guaranty is triggered, the cross-margining participant becomes obligated to reimburse the guarantor clearing organization for the amount of the guaranty payment (called the “Reimbursement Obligation”).
The cross-margining agreement also provides for the sharing of remaining resources beyond the cross-margining arrangement through a “cross-guaranty” provision. This provision reflects the view that excess collateral of a defaulting member should remain with the clearing organizations, if needed, to cover their losses. Specifically, if after guaranty payments, if any, one of the clearing organizations has a remaining surplus, and the other has a remaining loss, the agreement provides a mechanism for the distribution of that surplus to the clearing organization that still has a remaining loss.
(a) The minimum margin factor under the former FICC-BOTCC cross-margining agreement was 50 percent. FICC and TCC have agreed to a minimum margin factor of 25 percent. This is the same minimum margin factor used in the current cross-margining arrangement with the CME.
(b) The Proposed FICC-TCC Agreement provides for inter-offset class cross-margining whereas the former
(c) Appendix B of the FICC-TCC Agreement will include more FICC products than did the former BOTCC arrangement. The former BOTCC agreement covered FICC offset classes C, E, F, G and f, and offset classes E, F, and f were defined more narrowly for purposes of the arrangement than they were defined in the GSD's rules. The Proposed FICC-TCC Agreement includes the GSD's offset classes A through G and GCF Repo Treasury securities with equivalent remaining maturities, non-mortgage-backed Agency securities that fall into the GSD's offset classes e and f, and GCF Repo non-mortgage-backed Agency securities with equivalent remaining maturities. These offset classes are as broad as they are defined in the GSD's rules.
(d) Appendix B of the FICC-TCC Agreement will also include FICC's GCF Repo Treasury and non-mortgage-backed Agency products. FICC is now able to margin its GCF Repo Treasury and non-mortgage-backed Agency products based upon the specific underlying collateral as opposed to the former system of margining these products based upon the longest maturity of eligible underlying collateral.
(e) The Proposed FICC-TCC Agreement provides that the parties will agree from time to time in a separate writing on the disallowance factors that will be used in the arrangement. Prior to the implementation date of the proposed FICC-TCC cross-margining program, the disallowance factors will be tested and agreed to by FICC and TCC in writing.
(f) The current agreement between FICC and CME provides that in order to determine the gain or loss from the liquidation (resulting from a default) of the positions that were cross-margined, only the proceeds from the side of the market that was offset pursuant to the agreement at the last margin cycle are considered. This approach will be extended to the Proposed FICC-TCC Agreement products to provide consistency in the liquidation methods.
(g) The former FICC-BOTCC agreement provided for a “Maximization Payment” whereby a clearing organization with a remaining surplus after all guaranty payments in relation to cross-margining were made (“Aggregate Net Surplus”) to distribute funds to one or more cross-margining partners with remaining losses. The Proposed FICC-TCC Agreement makes clear that: (i) the Maximization Payment is also a guaranty payment (albeit outside of cross-margining) and (ii) the defaulting member would have a reimbursement obligation with respect to such payment (“Maximization Reimbursement Obligation”). Should a clearing organization become obligated to pay the Maximization Payment, it may rely on the defaulting member's collateral to do so.
(h) A provision has been added to take into account that a regulator or other entity having supervisory authority over FICC or TCC may direct the clearing organization not to liquidate a defaulting member or to partially liquidate such member. In order to prevent the affected clearing organization from being penalized under the agreement for failing to liquidate or partially liquidating the member in this type of situation, the Proposed FICC-TCC Agreement provides that the affected clearing organization would be deemed to have a cross-margin gain equal to the base amount of the guaranty (
(i) The proposed FICC-TCC Agreement makes clear that the clearing organizations have security interests in the “Aggregate Net Surplus,” a large component of which would be the collateral and proceeds of positions of a defaulting member, as security for any reimbursement obligation, including any maximization reimbursement obligation, that arises on the part of a defaulting member.
(j) The proposed FICC-TCC cross-margining participant agreement has language in Appendices D and E in order to further protect the clearing organizations by making clear that the clearing organizations have a security interest in the Aggregate Net Surplus and that a participant will have a reimbursement obligation in the event that a clearing organization becomes obligated to make a maximization payment. Members that wish to participate in the proposed FICC-TCC cross-margining arrangement will be required to execute the participant agreement to make them subject to the provisions of the Proposed FICC-TCC Agreement.
FICC is proposing to amend Appendix A of the cross-margining agreement with the CME to add a reference to the Proposed FICC-TCC Agreement. In Appendix A, the parties set forth the other cross-margining or similar arrangements that they have in place and indicate whether such agreements take priority over the present agreement. As stated above, no preference is given by FICC to one Participating CO over another.
FICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to FICC and particularly with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact, or impose any burden on, competition.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited or received. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by FICC.
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-FICC-2004-16. 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 (the “Exchange Act”),
Proposed new NYSE Rule 405A (“Non-Managed Fee-Based Account Programs—Disclosure and Monitoring”) would prescribe certain requirements for members and member organizations that offer programs that charge customers a fixed fee or percentage of account value in lieu of commissions. The requirements include disclosure, appropriateness determination, monitoring of transactional activity, and a follow-up system to contact customers. The text of the proposed new rule appears below. Proposed new language is in
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.
In keeping with evolving investors' sentiment and needs, members and member organizations have increasingly been offering a wider variety of account types beyond traditional brokerage accounts, including on-line accounts and fee-based programs such as “wrap” accounts, whereby all the services (investment advice, execution, and clearance) provided by a broker-dealer are bundled together for a fee. Members and member organizations are also increasingly offering Non-Managed Fee Based Account Programs (“NFBA Programs”) to their customers.
NFBA Programs are agreements between a broker-dealer and a customer in which the customer is charged a fixed fee and/or a percentage of account value rather than transaction-based commissions. Unlike “wrap” accounts, NFBA Programs do not offer investment advisory services but are directed by the customer or by an agent of the customer pursuant to a separate agreement. The primary advantage of NFBA Programs is that they offer a “volume discount” from traditional transaction-based commission charges.
Every member and member organization is required by NYSE Rule 405 (“Diligence as to Accounts”) to “[u]se due diligence to learn the essential facts relative to every customer, every order, [and] every cash or margin account.* * *” Likewise, NYSE Rule 342 (“Offices—Approval, Supervision and Control”) requires that each member and member organization exercise supervision and control over each business activity. While NFBA Programs are subject to the provisions of these and all other applicable NYSE rules, they present potential regulatory issues that warrant a specifically tailored approach. For instance, as a general matter, a fee-based approach may be considered appropriate for customers who engage in moderate to high levels of trading activity since the price per trade is reduced as the number of trades increases. However, such arrangements may not be appropriate for customers who engage in a lower level of trading activity, as substantially greater transaction cost savings might be realized in the context of a traditional pay-per-trade commission structure.
Various factors, including other services provided as part of the Program, must be considered to determine whether a given NFBA Program is an appropriate investment vehicle for a particular customer. The NYSE is proposing NYSE Rule 405A to address regulatory concerns in this regard by requiring initial informational disclosure to customers, appropriateness determination prior to account opening, ongoing monitoring, and follow-up as appropriate. Accordingly, the proposed rule requires each member and member organization to provide each customer, prior to the opening of an NFBA Program account and annually thereafter, a disclosure document describing the types of NFBA Programs available to such customer. The document would include for each account type, at minimum, a description of the services provided, eligible assets, fees charged, including projected customer costs, any conditions or restrictions imposed, and a summary of the Program's advantages and disadvantages. Essentially, the document should provide a reasonable basis upon which a customer can make an informed decision with respect to available NFBA Program options.
The member or member organization must also make a determination, prior to opening an account in an NFBA Program, that such Program is appropriate for each customer taking into account the services provided, anticipated costs, and customer objectives. Cost is an important factor, but not the only one. For this reason, factors other than cost may properly be considered in determining whether an NFBA Program is appropriate for a particular customer. Members and member organizations must consider the overall needs and objectives of the customer when determining the benefits and costs of an NFBA Program for that customer, including the anticipated level of trading activity in the account and non-price factors, such as the importance that a customer places on aligning his or her interests with those of the broker.
Proposed Rule 405A also requires a member or member organization to establish and maintain systems and procedures adequate to monitor, on an ongoing basis, transactional activity by customers in NFBA Programs. Such systems and procedures must include specific transactional parameters or criteria for identifying customer account activity that may be inconsistent with the Program costs incurred by the customers. The proposed rule does not
Proposed Rule 405A also requires a member or member organization to maintain written procedures for contacting and following up, at minimum, every 12 months, with those customers whose level of activity in an NFBA Program over a specified period of time has been identified, pursuant to the member or member organization's transactional parameters or criteria, as possibly inconsistent with their incurred Program costs. The minimum 12-month standard reflects the fact that, due to any number of variables, an NFBA Program's appropriateness may not be determinable except over a relatively extended period of time. Such variables could include, among others, general economic or market conditions, variations in customer trading patterns, changes in customer investment objectives, or the types of services/benefits included in a given Program. However, as noted above, members and member organizations have an ongoing obligation to monitor NFBA Program activity and, accordingly, more frequent customer contact should be made if warranted by the circumstances. At minimum, all such contact must include notification that the level of account activity for a specified time-frame may be inconsistent with the Program costs incurred by the customer. The proposed rule does not prescribe specific procedures for identifying, contacting, and following-up with customers since the variety of NFBA Programs, customer investment profiles, and member organization supervisory structures, allows for numerous effective alternate methods. However, the proposed rule does require that the means (
Because proposed Rule 405A is intended to protect the interests of retail customers, it contains an exception for accounts opened on behalf of “Qualified Investors” as that term is defined in Section 3(a)(54) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
As noted above, proposed Rule 405A would not apply to arrangements in which a fixed fee and/or a percentage of account value is charged as payment for investment advisory services. Most such accounts are subject to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange believes that the proposal does not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
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
• 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-2004-13. 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.
On August 9, 2004, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX” or “Exchange”), through its wholly-owned subsidiary, PCX Equities, Inc. (“PCXE”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Phlx proposes to waive the options specialist shortfall fee (“shortfall fee”) for the period May 2004 through August 2004 for one specialist unit that did not have a specialized quote feed (“SQF”) in place that could price an option accurately for any option where the primary volume in the underlying security shifted to another market.
First full month of trading: 0% national market share.
Second full month of trading: 3% national market share.
Third full month of trading: 6% national market share.
Fourth full month of trading: 9% national market share.
Fifth full month of trading (and thereafter): 12% national market share.
In its filing with the Commission, the Phlx included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for 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 Phlx filed the proposed rule change to correct an economic outcome caused when one particular specialist unit was unable to price an option accurately because of a unique situation where: (i) The key liquidity, the most volume and often the best market are other than on the market where the security is primarily listed; and (ii) the specialist unit's Quoting Mechanism is technologically tied to the price of the underlying security on its listed market. Specifically, the specialist unit was unable to secure technology changes to price the option using the “new” primary market quickly (as both the Exchange, respecting Auto-Quote, and outside vendors, respecting SQFs, could not make such extensive changes quickly and faced competing priorities); thus, the specialist unit has linked its failure to achieve the shortfall targets to these technology/pricing issues. Accordingly, this proposed rule change is limited in scope, and is intended to correct what the Exchange has determined is a limited, unfair outcome of its shortfall fee for this specific specialist unit.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any inappropriate burden on competition.
No written comments were either solicited or 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-Phlx-2004-62. 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.
In accordance with a notice received from the Department of Homeland Security—Federal Emergency Management Agency—effective October 22, 2004, the above numbered declaration is hereby amended to reestablish the incident period for this disaster as beginning September 13, 2004, and continuing through and including September 26, 2004.
All other information remains the same,
In accordance with a notice received from the Department of Homeland Security—Federal Emergency Management Agency—effective October 22, 2004, the above numbered declaration is hereby amended to include Lawrence County as a disaster area due to severe storms and flooding. In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in the contiguous county of Scioto in the State of Ohio; Boyd and Greenup Counties in the Commonwealth of Kentucky; and Wayne County in the State of West Virginia may be filed until the specified date at the previously designated location. All other counties contiguous to the above named primary county have previously been declared.
The economic injury number assigned to Kentucky is 9AI600.
All other information remains the same,
In accordance with a notice received from the Department of Homeland Security—Federal Emergency Management Agency—effective October 19, 2004, the above numbered declaration is hereby amended to include the Municipality of Gurabo as a disaster area due to damages caused by Tropical Storm Jeanne. All other municipalities contiguous to the above named primary municipality have previously been declared.
In addition, Añasco, Ciales, Dorado, Fajardo, Florida, Guayanilla, Isabela, Juana Díaz, Juncos, Lares, Moca, Peñuelas, Ponce, Salinas, San Juan, San Lorenzo, San Sebastian, Vega Alta, Vega Baja, and Yauco Municipalities in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are also eligible under Public Assistance and our disaster loan program is available for private non-profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature in those municipalities.
All other information remains the same,
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages that will require clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Pub. L. 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. The information collection packages that may be included in this notice are for revisions to OMB-approved information collections and extensions (no change) of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and on ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments and recommendations regarding the information collection(s) should be submitted to the OMB Desk Officer and the SSA Reports Clearance Officer. The information can be mailed and/or faxed to the individuals at the addresses and fax numbers listed below:
I. The information collections listed below are pending at SSA and will be submitted to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. Therefore, your comments should be submitted to SSA within 60 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain copies of the collection instruments by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454 or by writing to the address listed above.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. Listing of Impairments—Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix I—0960-0642.
The Listing of Impairments (the listings), Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix I, describes for each of the major body systems, impairments which are severe enough to prevent an individual from doing any gainful activity. As part of the listings, we provide an introductory text, which identifies specific requirements that affect the body system, such as documentation requirements and other factors that must be considered when evaluating impairments within that body system. These can include requirements for medical and other evidence. This clearance request covers sections in the following listings that contain information collection requirements: The regulations for the musculoskeletal body system contain reporting requirements at sections 1.00B, 1.00C, 1.00D, 1.00E, 1.00H, 1.00I, 1.00J, 1.00K, 1.00P, 14.09A, 101.00B, 101.00C, 101.00D, 101.00E, 101.00H, 101.00I, 101.00J, 101.00P, and 114.09A. The regulations for the cardiovascular body system contain reporting requirements at sections 4.00B, 4.00C, 4.00D, 4.00E, 4.00F, 4.00G, 4.02A, 104.00B, 104.00C, 104.00E, and 104.06. The regulations for the genitourinary body system contain reporting requirements at sections 6.00C, 6.00E, 6.00G, 106.00C, 106.00E, and 106.00G. The regulations for the skin body system contain reporting requirements at sections 8.00C, 8.00D, 108.00B, 108.00C, and 108.00D. The regulations for the multiple body system contain reporting requirements at sections 10.00B, 10.00C, 110.00B, and 110.00C. The regulations for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) contain reporting requirements at sections 11.00G and 11.10. The regulations for the malignant neoplastic diseases contain reporting requirements at 13.00B, 13.00D, 13.00E, 13.00G, 13.00K, 113.00B, 113.00D, 113.00E, 113.00G, and 113.00K.
The medical evidence documentation described in the listings is used by State DDSs to assess the alleged disability. The information, together with other evidence, is used to determine if an individual claiming disability benefits has an impairment that meets severity and duration requirements. The respondents are disability applicants and other sources of evidence. SSA uses various forms to collect the information specified in the regulations. The public reporting burden is accounted for in the Information Collection Requests for these forms. Consequently, we are assigning a placeholder of 1-hour to the specific reporting requirements in theses listings so that we do duplicate the burden assigned to the forms.
9.
The respondents are applicants for Title II and Title XVI disability benefits. These applicants may complete the form using any of the following modalities: (1) The traditional paper form; (2) an interview with an SSA field office representative, using the Electronic Disability Collection System (EDCS); (3) the Internet (i3368); and (4) a new modality, the i3368-PRO, an Internet form designed to be completed by representatives of applicants for disability payments. The latter three versions of the form collect the same information as the paper form, but may be formatted differently and include certain enhancements (ex: self-help screens) to guide the claimant or interviewer through the application process.
II. The information collections listed below have been submitted to OMB for clearance. Your comments on the information collections would be most useful if received by OMB and SSA within 30 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain a copy of the OMB clearance packages by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454, or by writing to the address listed above.
1.
The topical modules for the SIPP for SSA Beneficiaries collect information about:
• Medical Expenses and Utilization of Health Care (Adults and Children).
• Work-Related Expenses, Child Support Paid and Child Care Poverty.
• Assets, Liabilities, and Eligibility.
• Dependent Care.
The survey will include approximately 2,000 households. We estimate that each household will average 2.1 people, yielding 4,200 interviews. On average interviews take 45 minutes. The survey interviews will be conducted from January 1, 2005 through January 31, 2005.
2.
III. Agency Information Collection Activities: Emergency Consideration Request SSA is requesting emergency consideration from OMB two weeks from the date of publication of the information collection listed below. Therefore, please submit your comments prior to this date.
1.
SSA has recently revised its strategic performance objective to “measure the percent of adult Americans who are knowledgeable about the current Social Security program and related issues, including long-range financing.” For 2004, SSA has adjusted its PUMS process to collect data on this revised measure. Once this data is collected, then SSA will set a strategic performance goal with yearly performance targets as required by the GPRA.
The survey instrument is designed to collect knowledge data at the national level via 1,400 national surveys. Additionally, the survey is designed to assure a valid knowledge measure for key populations toward which SSA has targeted education and outreach programs. This information is a crucial step in making SSA more focused and effective in its communication programs. The respondents will be randomly selected adults residing in the United States.
Social Security Administration (SSA).
Amended routine use.
In accordance with the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11)), we are issuing public notice of our intent to amend a routine use applicable to SSA's system of records entitled, Master Files of Social Security Number (SSN) Holders and SSN Applications, 60-0058. On August 6, 2004, we published a notice of routine use in the
We filed a report of the amended routine use disclosure with the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the Chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, and the Director, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on October 26, 2004. The proposed routine use will become effective on December 6, 2004, unless we receive comments warranting it not to become effective.
Interested individuals may comment on this publication by writing to the Executive Director, Office of Public Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Room 3-A-6 Operations Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401. All comments received will be available for public inspection at the above address.
Ms. Carlotta B. Davis, Social Insurance Specialist, Disclosure Policy Team, Office of Public Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, in Room 3-C-2 Operations Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, e-mail address at
On August 6, 2004, we published a notice in the
• Name (including the first name and any family forename or surname),
• Date of birth (DOB) (including the month, day and year), and
• The last four digits of the Social Security number (SSN)).
Section 303(a)(5)(D) of HAVA (42 U.S.C. 15483(a)(5)(D)) also allows those States that have historically collected SSNs for voter registration purposes, in accordance with section 7 of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a note), to verify the full SSN instead of the last four digits of the SSN for State voter registration for elections for Federal office. Accordingly, those States that collected the SSN in accordance with the provisions of section 7 of the Privacy Act may request SSA to verify the full SSN of their voter registrant applicants as allowed by section 303(a)(5)(D) of HAVA. We therefore are amending the routine use we published in the FR on August 6, 2004, to allow these verifications. The amended routine use, numbered 41, provides for the following disclosure:
To the State and Territory Motor Vehicle Administration officials (or agents or contractors on their behalf) and State and Territory chief election officials under the provisions of section 205(r)(8) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(r)(8)) to verify the accuracy of information provided by the State agency with respect to applications for voter registration for those individuals who do not have a driver's license number:
• For whom the last four digits of the Social Security number are provided, or
• For whom the full Social Security number is provided in accordance with section 7 of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a note), as described in section 303(a)(5)(D) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(a)(5)(D)).
We are not republishing the notice of this system of records in its entirety at this time. This system of records was last published in its entirety in the FR at 63 FR 14165, 3/24/98.
As noted in the FR publication of the routine use on August 6, 2004, the verification process will involve the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), State motor vehicle agencies (MVA), and SSA. Under this process, State MVAs will input voter registrants' names, dates of birth, and either the last four digits of the SSNs or, where permissible, the full SSN into AAMVA's AAMVAnet system, which in turn will forward the information to SSA for matching with SSA records. After matching the input data with data in SSA records, SSA will return one response code indicating results of the verification, including whether death information is recorded in SSA records, as appropriate.
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(7) and (b)(3)) and SSA's disclosure regulation (20 CFR Part 401) permit us to disclose information under a published routine use for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which we collected the information. Section 401.150(c) of the regulations permits us to disclose information under a routine use, where necessary, to carry out SSA programs or assist other
The routine use amendment will allow SSA to verify the full SSN for those States allowed to use the full SSN for voter registration for elections for Federal office, in accordance with the provisions of section 303(a)(5)(D) of the HAVA. Section 205(r)(8) of the Social Security Act provides that information furnished by the Commissioner of Social Security, under agreements with the States and territories, is confidential and use of the information is limited to the purpose of verifying voter registrants' information as provided in the agreements. This statute also provides that any officer or employee or former officer or employee of a State, or any officer or employee or former officer or employee of a contractor of a State who, without written authority of the Commissioner, publishes or communicates any information in the individual's possession by reason of such employment or position as such an officer, shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, as described in section 208 of the Social Security Act. Additionally, we will adhere to all applicable provisions of the Privacy Act when disclosing information. Thus, we do not anticipate that the proposed new routine use will have any unwarranted adverse effect on the rights of individuals about whom data will be disclosed.
The Department of State has renewed the Charter of the Overseas Security Advisory Council. This advisory council will continue to interact on overseas security matters of mutual interest between the U.S. Government and the American private sector. The Council's initiatives and security publications provide a unique contribution to protecting American private sector interests abroad. The Under Secretary for Management has determined that the Council is necessary and in the public interest.
The Council consists of representatives from four (4) U.S. Government agencies and thirty (30) American private sector companies and organizations. The Council will follow the procedures prescribed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463). Meetings will be open to the public unless a determination is made in accordance with section 10(d) of the FACA, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and (4), that a meeting or a portion of the meeting should be closed to the public. Notice of each meeting will be provided in the
For more information contact Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security Advisory Council, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-2008, phone: 571-345-2214.
The Department of State Announces the Establishment of the U.S. National Commission for the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
The U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, which will operate pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), will provide recommendations to the Secretary of State and to the U.S. Mission to UNESCO in Paris. The primary focus of the recommendations will relate to the formulation and implementation of U.S. policy towards UNESCO on matters of education, science, communications, and culture. In its efforts to uphold and promote human rights, tolerance, and learning worldwide, the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO is necessary and in the public interest.
To contact the commission, please call (202) 647-6081 or e-mail
The Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy (ACIEP) will meet from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. on Monday, November 15, 2004, in Room 1207, U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will be hosted by Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs E. Anthony Wayne and Committee Chairman R. Michael Gadbaw. Topics for the meeting are (1) a preview of the November 17-21 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Ministerial, CEO Summit and Senior Officials Meeting, and (2) a discussion of issues surrounding the lifting of sanctions regarding Libya. The ACIEP serves the U.S. Government in a solely advisory capacity concerning issues and problems in international economic policy.
This meeting is open to the public as seating capacity allows. Entry to the building is controlled and will be facilitated by advance arrangements. Members of the public planning to attend should provide, by November 9, their name, professional affiliation, social security number (or other identification, such as driver's license), date of birth, and citizenship to Gwendolyn Jackson by fax (202) 647-5936, e-mail (
For additional information, contact Thomas Cunningham, Economic Officer, Office of Economic Policy and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, at (202) 647-2534 or
Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Notice.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is requesting applications for membership to serve on the Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities (ACT). Applications will be accepted for the following vacancies which will occur in May 2005: Two (2) employee plans; two (2) exempt organizations; one (1) Federal, State, and local governments; and one (1) tax exempt bonds. (There are currently no vacancies for Indian tribal governments.) To ensure appropriate balance of membership, final selection from qualified candidates will be determined based on experience, qualifications, and other expertise.
Written applications or nominations must be received on or before December 1, 2004.
Send all applications and nominations to: Steven Pyrek; Director, TE/GE Communications and Liaison; 1111 Constitution Ave., NW.—SE:T:CL Penn Bldg; Washington, DC 20224; Fax: (202) 283-9956 (not a toll-free number); E-mail:
Rick Trevino, (202) 283-9963 (not a toll-free number), or by e-mail at
The Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities (ACT), governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, is an organized public forum for discussion of relevant employee plans, exempt organizations, tax-exempt bonds, and Federal, State, local, and Indian tribal government issues between officials of the IRS and representatives of the above communities. The ACT also enables the IRS to receive regular input with respect to the development and implementation of IRS policy concerning these communities. ACT members present the interested public's observations about current or proposed IRS policies, programs, and procedures, as well as suggest improvements. ACT members shall be appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury and shall serve for two-year terms. Terms can be extended in one-year increments, not to exceed two years. ACT members will not be paid for their time or services. ACT members will be reimbursed for their travel-related expenses to attend working sessions and public meetings, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5703.
The Secretary of the Treasury invites those individuals, organizations, and groups affiliated with employee plans, exempt organizations, tax-exempt bonds, and Federal, State, local or Indian tribal governments, to nominate individuals for membership on the ACT. Nominations should describe and document the proposed member's qualifications for membership on the ACT. Nominations should also specify the vacancy for which they wish to be considered. The Secretary seeks a diverse group of members representing a broad spectrum of persons experienced in employee plans, exempt organizations, tax-exempt bonds, and Federal, State, local or Indian tribal governments.
Nominees must go through a clearance process before selection by the Secretary of the Treasury. In accordance with Department of the Treasury Directive 21-03, the clearance process includes, among other things, pre-appointment and annual tax checks, and a Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal and subversive name check and security clearance.
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
Notice of closed meeting of Art Advisory Panel.
Closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held in Washington, DC.
The meeting will be held December 2, 2004.
The closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held on December 2, 2004, in Room 4200E beginning at 9:30 a.m., Franklin Court Building, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Karen Carolan, C:AP:AS, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. Telephone (202) 435-5609 (not a toll free number).
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that a closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held on December 2, 2004, in Room 4200E beginning at 9:30 a.m., Franklin Court Building, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
The agenda will consist of the review and evaluation of the acceptability of fair market value appraisals of works of art involved in Federal income, estate, or gift tax returns. This will involve the discussion of material in individual tax returns made confidential by the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6103.
A determination as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act has been made that this meeting is concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(3), (4), (6), and (7), and that the meeting will not be open to the public.
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 provide for the access and distribution of solicitation requirements or other documents (
Interested parties should submit comments in writing on or before January 3, 2005 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.
Submit comments identified by FAR case 2004-007 by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Agency Web Site:
•E-mail:
• Fax: 202-501-4067.
• Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (V), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, ATTN: Laurie Duarte, Washington, DC 20405.
The FAR Secretariat at (202) 501-4755 for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. For clarification of content, contact Mr. Gerald Zaffos, Procurement Analyst, at(202) 208-6091. Please cite FAR case 2004-007.
Under current FAR regulations, contracting officers are required to use the Governmentwide Point of Entry (GPE) to publish information about proposed contract actions where the contract is estimated to be $25,000 or more. FAR 5.102 encourages contracting officers to use the GPE to disseminate additional information related to solicitations, where practicable and cost-effective. However, as a freely accessible web site, the GPE is inappropriate for disseminating information that requires additional controls to monitor access and distribution (
Agencies will still be required to synopsize and post their contracting opportunities at the Government Point of Entry, FedBizOpps. However, the agency should post information that requires additional controls to monitor access and distribution (
By clicking on the link, a vendor will be taken to FedTeDS. Once in FedTeDS, a vendor can either download a copy of the information or request it on a compact disc (CD) (if the contracting agency is making the information available in that medium). In order to download the information or request a CD, the vendor must be registered in both the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) and FedTeDS. To register in FedTeDS, a vendor must have the Marketing Partner Identification Number (MPIN) it created when registering in CCR. The MPIN, together with the vendor's CAGE number or DUNS number, is used to register and obtain a password in FedTeDS. Because the vendor defines it, the MPIN in combination with the CAGE or DUNS number provides a unique identifier for authenticating the individual obtaining the information. A vendor user guide is available at
Vendors that have already downloaded solicitations from FedBizOpps will receive an e-mail notification when new information becomes available in FedTeDS. They will then have to go to FedBizOpps to click on the appropriate link to FedTeDS. Vendors will only have access to documents related to information in FedTeDS through a link from FedBizOpps; there is no search capability within FedTeDS.
A feature of FedTeDS that is available to vendors is “See My Colleagues.” This allows the vendor to see who has been using the same CAGE code or DUNS number, thereby helping to ensure that only authorized people have access.
For acquisitions that are exempt from posting in FedBizOpps, an agency can send specific vendors an email with a direct link to the information in FedTeDS. This allows an agency to avoid sending large attachments through an unsecured email system.
This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not 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 2, 5, and 7 as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 2, 5, and 7 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 2.101 in paragraph (b) by adding, in alphabetical order, the definition “Federal Technical Data Solution (FedTeDS)” to read as follows:
(b) * * *
3. Amend section 5.102 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2); by adding a new paragraph (a)(5); and by revising the introductory text of paragraph (b) to read as follows:
(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, the contracting officer must make available through the GPE solicitations synopsized through the GPE. The contracting officer must also make specifications, technical data, and other pertinent solicitation information available through the GPE, except as provided in paragraph (a)(5) of this section. Transmissions to the GPE must be in accordance with the interface description available via the Internet at
(2) The contracting officer is encouraged, when practicable and cost-effective, to make accessible through the GPE additional information related to a solicitation, except as provided in paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
(5) When a solicitation contains information that requires additional controls to monitor access and distribution (
(i) Information that is classified; or
(ii) Information that will be provided through alternative electronic means; or
(iii) Information that, because of its nature (
(b) When the contracting officer does not make a solicitation available through the GPE pursuant to paragraph (a)(4) of this section or when the contracting officer does not make information that requires additional controls to monitor access and distribution available through FedTeDS, pursuant to paragraph (a)(5) of this section, the contracting officer—
4. Amend section 5.207 in paragraph (c)(19) by removing “if any” and adding “such as FedTeDS (
5. Amend section 7.105 by adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (b)(15) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(15) * * * Indicate which information that requires additional controls to monitor access and distribution (