The information presented in this notice is included to help the reviewer determine if they are interested in or potentially affected by the proposed land management activities. The information presented in this notice is summarized. Those who wish to provide comments, or are otherwise interested in or affected by the project, are encouraged to obtain additional information from the contact identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Proposed Actions—The proposed land management activities (proposed actions) include the following, with approximate acreage and mileage values: (1) Forest age and density—selection harvest 1747 acres, thin 2835 acres, clearcut harvest 489 acres, overstory removal harvest 79 acres, shelterwood harvest 382 acres (other actions needed include 1.7 miles of road construction and 14.7 miles of road reconstruction); (2) stand tending and reforestation—hand release 1589 acres of young plantations, prescribe burn 26 acres, plant 1338 acres of white pine and eastern hemlock in the understories of existing stands, plant fully on 54 acres, mechanically scarify 259 acres for natural regeneration, and fence 29 acres to protect hemlock; (3) road closures—close 1.4 miles of roads currently open, and decommission from the Forest's classified road system 32.5 miles of roads; (4) wildlife habitat maintenance and improvement—hand release 99 acres of wildlife openings using brush cutters, and plant fruit-bearing shrubs on 20 acres.

Responsible Official—The Forest Supervisor of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, Anne Archie, is the Responsible Official for making project-level decisions from the project.

Decision Space—Decisionmaking will be limited to specific activities relating to the proposed actions. The primary decision to be made will be whether or not to implement the proposed actions or another action alternative that responds to the project's purpose and needs.

Project History—In 2004, the Forest Service was developing a proposal for the Boulder Opportunity Area. In January of 2005, the Boulder Project is being presented to the public for comment (scoping) prior to undertaking preparation of an Environmental Assessment. Years of experience have shown that the effects of implementing similar activities in the area are not significant. We therefore do not feel that an EIS is required. However, due to the increase in appeals and litigation and for wise fiscal efficiency, an EIS will be prepared for the Boulder Project.

Preliminary Issues—Comments from American Indian tribes, the public, and other agencies will be considered in identifying preliminary issues. Issues raised in similar projects have included: Effects to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; effects to management indicator species; effects from road construction and road closures; effects to motorized recreational access.

Public Participation—The Forest Service is seeking comments from Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as local Native American tribes and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in or affected by the proposed actions. Comments received in response to this notice will become a matter of public record. While public participation is welcome at any time, comments on the proposed actions received within 30 days of this notice will be especially useful in the preparation of the draft EIS. Timely comments will be used to identify: Potential issues with the proposed actions, alternatives to the proposed actions that respond to the identified needs and significant issues, and potential environmental effects of the proposed actions and alternatives considered in detail. In addition, the public is encouraged to contact and/or visit Forest Service officials at any time during the planning process.

The decisions associated with the analysis of this project will be consistent with the Chequamegon-Nicolet Forest Plan.

Estimated Dates for Filing—The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency and available for public review in December 2005. A 45-day comment period will follow publication of a Notice of Availability of the draft EIS in the Federal Register . Comments received on the draft EIS will be used in preparation of the final EIS, expected in April 2006. A Record of Decision (ROD) will also be issued at that time along with the publication of a Notice of Availability of the final EIS and ROD in the Federal Register .

Reviewer's Obligation to Comment—The Forest Service believes it is important at this early stage to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of the draft EIS must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal in such a way that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp . v. NRDC , 435 U.S. 519, 513 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft EIS stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final EIS may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir, 1986), and Wisconsin Heritages Inc . v. Harris , 490 F.Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis., 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period of the draft EIS in order that substantive comments and objections are available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final EIS. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments should be as specific as possible. 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.

The meetings are open to the public. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Trinity County Resource Advisory Committee.

The Conservation Security Program (CSP) is a voluntary program providing both technical and financial assistance to producers of agricultural operations for the conservation and improvement of the quality of soil, water, air, energy, plant and animal life on working lands. The intent of the program is to recognize producers financially for the significant environmental goods and services they provide to the public through their annual and ongoing conservation stewardship efforts, to motivate other agricultural producers to do the same, and to secure the Nations ability to produce food and fiber. The need to which NRCS is responding by proposing action is the need to implement CSP in a manner that achieves the purposes for which Congress authorized it, including providing payments to producers who practice good conservation stewardship on their agriculture operations, providing payments to producers to maintain conservation practices they have implemented, to provide financial assistance to producers to implement new conservation practices, and to provide payments to producers as incentives to enhance their conservation achievements. Participation in the CSP requires that a Conservation Security Program Plan be developed which includes an inventory of the agricultural operation to identify existing resource concerns and benchmark conditions of the land as well as determining the extent of existing conservation treatment. Annual payments made under CSP contracts may include a stewardship payment for existing conservation treatments, cost-share and maintenance payments, and an enhancement payment for exceptional conservation effort. A three tiered approach is used to determine the level and limitations of all payments.

The Chief of NRCS has authority under CSP to assist producers who participate in the CSP to develop a comprehensive, long term strategy for improving and maintaining all natural resources of the producer's agricultural operation. All participants must meet the highly erodible land and wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended.

The CSP authorizes activities that reward agricultural producers for actions they have already taken to improve the quality and quantity of natural resources, and to implement new conservation measures that will also do so. NRCS has in the past and will continue to document the results of an environmental evaluation on a site-specific level consistent with NRCS policy and, as stated in the Environmental Assessment, will consult with the appropriate organizations to avoid, reduce or mitigate adverse impacts on protected resources. NRCS will comply with requirements protecting unique geographic features and other resources, as well as NRCS policies protecting natural and cultural resources. Thus, any adverse effects that may result from this program will occur at a much lower threshold than the Environmental Impact Statement threshold. Because the purpose of the program is to improve the quality of natural resources and because of the steps NRCS will take to work with other agencies as necessary on a site-specific basis to avoid, mitigate and reduce any potential collateral adverse effects, there is no threat of a violation of any Federal, State or local law or other requirements for the protection of the environment resulting from the proposed rule to implement the CSP. There is no impact on public health or safety identified in this EA or otherwise expected.

Implementation of the CSP rule is not sufficiently related to other actions that either individually or cumulatively is likely to result in the type of significant impacts that NEPA is intended to address. Based on the information in the EA for the CSP, the Chief of the NRCS finds that the proposed actions are not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment that requires preparation of an EIS.

Copies of the EA and FONSI may be reviewed at the following location: Financial Assistance Programs Division, NRCS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5241-S, Washington, DC 20013-2890. The documents may also be accessed on the Internet, at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/Env_Assess/CSP/CSP.html.

The preliminary information of this federally assisted proposed action indicates that the proposed action will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Richard Sims, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental assessment is needed for this project.

The objective of the Lower Payette Ditch Company proposed action is to provide efficient water delivery, operator safety and low maintenance, reliability, and adequate fish and recreational boater passage, while not adversely affecting the environment. The proposed project would replace the existing deteriorating diversion structure with an automated inflatable diversion dam. Alternatives evaluated to meet these objectives include: No Action, Upgrade Existing Diversion Dam with an Automated Inflatable Dam, Replace Existing Diversion Dam with a Push-Up Diversion Dam.

The Lower Payette Ditch Company invites participation and consultation of agencies and individuals that have special expertise, legal jurisdiction, or interest in the preparation of the draft environmental assessment. A limited number of copies of the EA are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment is on file and may be reviewed by contacting Richard Sims.

Further information on the proposed action or future public meetings may be obtained from Richard Sims, State Conservationist, at the above address or telephone (208) 378-5700.

Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after enactment of the law to NRCS State Technical Guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS in Idaho will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Idaho regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made.

On September 7, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Romania: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent To Rescind in Part , 69 FR 54108 (September 7, 2004). Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, (“the Act”), the final results are currently due on January 5, 2005.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, as amended, the Department may extend the deadline for completion of the final results of an administrative review if it determines that it is not practicable to complete the final results within the statutory time limit of 120 days from the date on which the preliminary results were published. The Department has determined that due to the complexity of the issues arising from Romania's graduation to market economy status during the review period, it is not practicable to complete this review within the time limits mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1) of the Department's regulations. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of these final results by 30 days. Accordingly, the final results of this review will now be due on February 4, 2005.

This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations.

On September 16, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a new shipper review of Shanghai Watex Metal Products, Co., Ltd. (“Watex”) under the antidumping duty order on porcelain-on-steel cooking ware (“POS”) for the period December 1, 2003, through May 31, 2004. See Certain Porcelain-On-Steel Cookware from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review , 69 FR 55795 (September 16, 2004) (“ Initiation Notice ”). The Department's initiation of a new shipper review of Watex was based on, among other things, Watex's certification that it was both the exporter and producer of the subject merchandise for which it requested new shipper review. See 19 CFR 351.214(b)(i) and Initiation Notice . Relying on the certification provided by Watex, the Department issued instructions to US. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), which allowed, at the option of the importer, the posting, until completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise for which Watex was both the producer and exporter.

On October 25, 2004, Watex submitted its Section A, C and D Questionnaire 1 response (“Response”) to the Department. In this response, Watex reported for the first time that another company, Shanghai Ping An Enamel Products Co. (“Ping An”), actually produced the subject merchandise that Watex exported to the United States. See Response, at page A-2.

On November 12, 2004, Columbian Home Products, LLC (“Petitioner”) submitted a letter to the Department requesting that the Department rescind the new shipper review of Watex because Watex failed to provide the proper certification as required by 19 CFR 251.214(b)(2). Petitioner based its rescission request on Watex's incorrect statement in its initial request that it was both the exporter and producer of the subject merchandise and its failure to provide certifications from Ping An in its initial request for a new shipper review. On November 24, 2004, Watex submitted its response to Petitioner's November 12, 2004, request. Watex claimed that it unintentionally omitted the certification from Ping An in its request for review. Watex further stated that the delayed certification neither materially impacted nor prejudiced any party in the review. On November 29, 2004, Petitioner responded to Watex's November 24, 2004, comments, noting that the essential question is not whether the delayed certification had a material impact or prejudiced any party to this case, but rather whether the regulatory requirements for initiating the new shipper review were met, and in this case they were not.

On December 6, 2004, the Department notified parties of its intent to rescind the review with respect to Watex because Watex failed to provide in its new shipper review request the necessary certification from the producer or supplier of the subject merchandise. The Department also determined that Watex provided misleading statements in its request for new shipper review and in its certification suggesting it was both the producer and exporter when it in fact was not. Based on these findings, the Department determined that it did not have a sufficient basis to initiate the new shipper review of Watex. See “Memorandum to the File: Antidumping New-Shipper Review of Certain Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from the People's Republic of China: Notification of Intent to Rescind,” dated December 6, 2004 (“Intent to Rescind”). The Department requested comments from interested parties on this issue no later than December 10, 2004. No parties filed any comments in response to the Department's Intent to Rescind of December 6, 2004.

Imports covered by this order are shipments of POS, including teakettles, which do not have self-contained electric heating elements. All of the foregoing are constructed of steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses. The merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) item number 7323.94.00. The HTS item number is provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope remains dispositive.

The Department is rescinding the new shipper review with respect to Watex. As noted above, Watex did not provide the proper certification, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B), to meet the minimum requirements for entitlement to a new shipper review. In order to meet the minimum requirements for entitlement to a new shipper review, a company that is the exporter but not the producer of the subject merchandise for which it requests review must provide, among other things, (1) a certification that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POI and (2) a certification from the person or company which produced or supplied the subject merchandise that the producer or supplier did not export the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. See 19 CFR 351.214(2)(ii)(A) and (B).

Watex did not provide a certification in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B), in its initial request, from the producer of subject merchandise that Watex sold or exported to the United States during the POR. Specifically, Watex was required to provide in its review request a certification from Ping An because Ping An produced the merchandise subject to this review, as confirmed by information contained in Watex's Response. Therefore, Watex did not meet the minimum certification requirements for initiation of a new shipper review. A certification from the producer is fundamental to the Department's initiation decision. Since Watex did not provide the certification, the Department has determined that Watex failed to provide all necessary certifications required to initiate and conduct a new shipper review. For these reasons and in accordance with our precedent, the Department is rescinding the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on POS from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) with respect to Watex pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2). See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Intent to Rescind Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review , 68 FR 45792 (August 4, 2003); Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review , 67 FR 65782 (October 28, 2002).

Bonding is no longer permitted to fulfill security requirements for shipments from Watex of POS 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 Federal Register . Further, effective upon publication of this notice for all shipments of the subject merchandise exported by Watex and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate, which is 66.65 percent.

This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.This rescission notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214.

On September 7, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain small diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe from Romania. See Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From Romania: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination Not To Revoke in Part , 69 FR 54119 (September 7, 2004) ( Seamless Pipe Preliminary Results ). Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the final results are currently due on January 5, 2005.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act,, the Department may extend the deadline for completion of the final results of an administrative review if it determines that it is not practicable to complete the final results within the statutory time limit of 120 days from the date on which the preliminary results were published. The Department has determined that due to the complexity of the issues arising from Romania's graduation to market economy status during the review period, it is not practicable to complete this review within the time limits mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1) of the Department's regulations. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of these final results by 30 days. Accordingly, the final results of this review will now be due on February 4, 2005.

This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations.

The Department's preliminary results of review were published on July 7, 2003. See Preliminary Results. We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. We received written comments on August 13, 2004, from Petitioners  1 and from Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (“Ta Chen”) and its wholly owned subsidiary Ta Chen International, Inc. (“TCI”). On August 20, 2004, we received rebuttal comments from Petitioners and Ta Chen. On October 20, 2004, the Department extended the final results of this review by 45 days until December 19, 2003. See Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan: Extension of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 61649, (October 20, 2004). On December 16, the Department fully extended the final results by the remaining 15 days, or until January 3, 2005. See Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Extension of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 75305, (December 16, 2004). The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).

The products subject to this order are certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings, whether finished or unfinished, under 14 inches inside diameter. Certain welded stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings (“pipe fittings”) are used to connect pipe sections in piping systems where conditions require welded connections. The subject merchandise is used where one or more of the following conditions is a factor in designing the piping system: (1) Corrosion of the piping system will occur if material other than stainless steel is used; (2) contamination of the material in the system by the system itself must be prevented; (3) high temperatures are present; (4) extreme low temperatures are present; and (5) high pressures are contained within the system.

Pipe fittings come in a variety of shapes, with the following five shapes the most basic: “elbows”, “tees”, “reducers”, “stub ends”, and “caps.” The edges of finished pipe fittings are beveled. Threaded, grooved, and bolted fittings are excluded from this review. The pipe fittings subject to this review are classifiable under subheading 7307.23.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”).

Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this review is dispositive. Pipe fittings manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials specification A774 are included in the scope of this order.

In the Preliminary Results, the Department issued a notice of intent to rescind the review with respect to Liang Feng Stainless Steel Fitting Co., Ltd. (“Liang Feng”), Tru-Flow Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Tru-Flow”), and PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd. (“PFP”) as we found that there were no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. See Preliminary Results at 40861. The Department received comments on this issue concerning Liang Feng and Tru-Flow. However, we continue to find that rescission of the review concerning Liang Feng, Tru-Flow and PFP is appropriate. Therefore, the Department is rescinding the review with respect to Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, and PFP.

All issues raised in the case briefs, as well as the Department's findings, in this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan, (“ Decision Memorandum ”), dated January 3, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file at the U.S. Department of Commerce, in the Central Records Unit, in room B-099. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at www.ia.ita.doc.gov. 2

As discussed in more detail in the Preliminary Results, the Department disregarded home market below-cost sales that failed the cost test in the final results of review.

A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made no changes in the margin calculation.

We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margin exists for the period June 1, 2002, through May 31, 2003:

The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate for merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting assessment rates against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the importer's entries during the review period. For duty assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates by dividing the dumping margins calculated for each importer by the total entered value of sales for each importer during the POR.

In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication: (1) The cash deposit rate for Ta Chen will be the rate shown above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers shall continue to be 51.01 percent.

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 C.F.R. 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

The San Francisco, CA scoping meeting: January 18, 2005, 5 p.m. - 8 p.m. The meeting location is Hilton Fisherman's Wharf, 2620 Jones Street, San Francisco, CA, 94133,

telephone: 415-885-4700.

The Seattle, WA scoping meeting: January 20, 2005,

5p.m. - 8p.m. The meeting location is NOAA's Western Regional Center, Building 9 Auditorium, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA, 98115.

The Boston, MA scoping meeting: January 25, 2005,

5p.m. - 8p.m. The meeting location is the New England Aquarium, Conference Center, Central Wharf, Boston, MA 02110.

The Silver Spring, MD scoping meeting: January 27, 2005, 5p.m. - 8p.m. The meeting location is the NOAA's Auditorium, 1301 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

Section 3(18)(A) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

The National Defense Authorization Act, enacted in November 2003, altered the definition of marine mammal harassment for “military readiness activities” and “scientific research activities conducted by or on behalf of the Federal Government consistent with section 104 (c)(3)” of the MMPA, as follows:

NMFS has been using generic sound exposure thresholds since 1997 to determine when an activity in the ocean that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a take by harassment might occur (an 'acoustic' take). NMFS is developing new science-based thresholds to improve and replace the current generic exposure level thresholds that have been used since 1997.

NMFS will be proposing to replace the current Level A and Level B harassment thresholds with guidelines based on exposure characteristics that are derived from empirical data and are tailored to particular species groups and sound types. These guidelines will identify exposures levels and durations that may produce either temporary or permanent shifts in hearing sensitivity thereby providing a more scientific basis for defining the threshold levels that might result in marine mammal harassment. Such information would be of use to industry (oil and gas, marine construction), researchers, academic, government, military and shipping activities.

As currently envisioned, the noise exposure guidelines would be based on the following sets of criteria. They would divide marine mammals into five functional hearing groups: low-frequency cetaceans (all mysticetes or baleen whales); mid-frequency cetaceans (all odontocete species (dolphins and porpoises) not included in the low or high frequency groups); high-frequency cetaceans (harbor and Dall s porpoise, river dolphins); pinnipeds under water (seals, fur seals and sea lions); and pinnipeds out of water. Each of the functional hearing groups has somewhat different hearing capabilities. Consequently, frequency-specific thresholds are being developed based on what is known about these differences.

The criteria would also categorize all anthropogenic sounds into four different types: single pulses (brief sounds with a fast rise time); single non-pulses (all other sounds); multiple pulses in a series; and multiple non-pulses in a series. Each of the five functional hearing groups would then be paired against the four sound types resulting in a matrix of values. These values would represent the noise-exposure criteria that NMFS would use, at least in part, to guide determinations of when an anthropogenic sound results in an acoustic “take” by harassment under the MMPA or ESA for each of the different marine mammal hearing groups. All threshold values would be expressed in terms of either a sound pressure level value that the animal receives, or as a measure of exposure that incorporates both sound pressures and time as a dimension where it is appropriate. This is referred to as the sound exposure, or energy flux density level. Energy levels are not directly comparable to pressure levels because of the time dimension.

A number of assumptions will be made in developing the acoustic matrix of threshold levels. For example, in most cells within the matrix, the criteria assume that all species in a functional hearing group have the same threshold apply to all species in the group. In reality, some species are so different from others in their functional hearing group that separate threshold criteria are appropriate for them. Further, there are no direct data on the effects of many kinds of sounds on many species of marine mammals. For now, therefore, it is necessary to extrapolate making reasonably conservative criteria from existing data to cover cases of missing data. An example of an extrapolation is the use of data from dolphins or beluga whales for other cetaceans. Most data on the effects of noise on marine mammals come from mid-frequency dolphins, especially bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales. The results of studies on these species are applied directly to low- and high-frequency cetaceans (for which data are sparse or non existent) without adjustment. This substitution is likely conservative for low frequency cetaceans because the mid-frequency cetacean ear is almost certainly more sensitive. The substitution is also likely satisfactory for high-frequency cetaceans. In the absence of data for marine mammals, in some cases, data from terrestrial mammals are used in determining exposure criteria.

The agenda for the Council's plenary session will include the following issues. The Council may take appropriate action on any of the issues identified.

Executive Director's Report

National Marine Fisheries Service Management Report

Enforcement Report

Coast Guard Report

Alaska Department of Fish & Game Report (and review of proposals to Board of Fisheries)

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Report

Protected Species Report (Review MMPA listing proposed rule

Review changes to EFH Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Final action on EFH Preferred Alternative. Final action on HAPC alternatives and Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Statement/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

Receive report from Community Committee and action as necessary. Review crab/salmon bycatch data and refine alternatives.

Review available information and refine alternatives as appropriate.

Review progress on Amendment 80 analysis and legal issues, and provide direction as necessary.

Review 2004 cooperative (co-op) reports and 2005 co-op agreements.

Review action plan and refine alternatives.

Non-Target Species Committee report. Review rockfish management preliminary discussion paper. GOA and BSAI Other Species breakout: Review action plan. AI Special Management Area: Review discussion paper. GOA pollock trip limits: Review discussion paper. Review EFP for Seabird avoidance measures. (T)

Review Seldovia Village request for Amendment 66 eligibility. Review tasking and Committee and initiate action as appropriate.

The SSC agenda will include the following issues:

1. EFH and Center for Independent Experts

2. Groundfish Management

3. Special Session on Modeling Workshop

The Advisory Panel will address the same agenda issues as the Council.

These meetings are 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.

The purpose of this meeting is to review draft whiting stock assessment documents and any other pertinent stock information, work with the Stock Assessment Team to make necessary revisions to the draft whiting stock assessment, and produce a STAR Panel report for use by the Council family and other interested persons. No management actions will be decided by the STAR Panel. The STAR Panel's role will be development of recommendations and reports for consideration by the Council at its March meeting in Sacramento, California.

Entry to the NWFSC requires visitors to show a valid picture ID and register with security. A visitor's badge, which must be worn while at the NWFSC facility, will be issued to non-federal employees participating in the meeting.

Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the workshop participants for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal workshop action during this meeting. Workshop action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the workshop participants' intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at 503-820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The requested amendment has been granted under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the provisions of 50 CFR 222.306 of the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened fish and wildlife (50 CFR 222-226).

The modification extends the expiration date of the Permit from December 31, 2004, to December 31, 2005, for takes of green ( Chelonia mydas ), loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ), olive ridley ( Lepidochelys olivacea ), leatherback ( Dermochelys coriacea ), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) and Kemp's ridley ( Lepidochelys kempii ) sea turtles. The permit allows the SEFSC to conduct sea turtle bycatch reduction research in the pelagic longline fishery of the western north Atlantic Ocean. The purpose of the research is to develop and test methods to reduce bycatch that occurs incidental to commercial pelagic longline fishing.

Issuance of this modification, as required by the ESA was based on a finding that such permit: (1) was applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the threatened and endangered species which are the subject of this permit; and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

The requested amendment has been granted under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).

On June 23, 1999, notice was published in the Federal Register (64 FR 33470) that a request for a permit to conduct research on a variety of cetaceans had been submitted by the above-named individual. The permit, which authorizes harassment of marine mammals in the North Atlantic during close approaches for photo-identification and behavioral observations, was issued on March 10, 2000 (65 FR 14947; March 20, 2000). This minor amendment extends the expiration date for the permit from March 31, 2005 to March 1, 2006. This minor amendment does not authorize harassment of any additional marine mammals. Rather, it allows the permit holder an additional 11 months to complete any research remaining from the previous permit year.

Issuance of this permit amendment, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit amendment: (1) was applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

On 15 September 2004, the JSC published a Notice of Proposed Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial and a Notice of Public Meeting to receive comment on its 2004 draft annual review of the Manual for Courts-Martial. On 15 October 2004, the public meeting was held. Five individuals attended the public meeting and provided oral comment. The JSC received sixteen letters commenting on the proposed amendments.

The proposed changes concern the rules of procedure applicable in trials by courts-martial. More specifically, the proposed changes: Amend Rules of Court-Martial and other provisions of the Manual to allow for remote testimony for certain Article 39(a), UCMJ sessions and presentencing witnesses; add the Manual for Courts-Martial provisions for newly enacted Article 119a, Death or Injury to an Unborn Child, enacted on 1 April 2004 in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004; and the addition of a new Article 134 offense of Patronizing a Prostitute.

In response to the request for public comment the JSC received oral and written comments. The JSC considered the public comments and, after making some minor amendments, is satisfied that the proposed amendments are appropriate to implement without additional modification. The JSC will forward the public comments and the proposed amendments to the Department of Defense.

Summaries of the oral and written comments regarding the proposed substantive changes follow:

a. In two submissions, one commentator objected to the remote testimony amendments to the Rules of Courts-Martial. The commentator objected, in part, because the commentator perceived that no rationale was provided for the proposed amendments. The commentator also considered the proposed amendments to be deleterious to the military justice system.

b. Three comments were received regarding the JSC proposed Manual provisions for the new Article 119a, Death or Injury to an Unborn Child. Most of the comments highlighted the fact that the statutory language may create some practical difficulties when an actual prosecution takes place under this provision. Other comments suggested creating a definition of “woman” for this specific article and adding certain language to the draft elements to make them more consistent with current practices. The JSC agreed and made amendments consistent with the comment on a definition of the term “woman” and to add Manual-consistent language to the draft specifications. One comment indicated that the JSC has proposed MCM provisions for this new criminal statute which are not completely consistent with the legislative language and intent.

c. The majority of comments received addressed the “Patronizing a Prostitute” offense which the JSC is recommending be added to paragraph 97 of Article 134, UCMJ. Those opposed to the JSC recommendation questioned the need for such an offense, for a variety of reasons including the impact on morale, the negative effects on the health of the service members, and the potential for this offense to be exploited by adversaries of the United States. In addition, some expressed concern regarding the manner in which the offense might ultimately be enforced. Those supporting the JSC recommendation believed it was both appropriate and long overdue. Neither those opposed to the JSC recommendation, nor those in support, provided specific technical amendments to the recommendation. One comment did indicate that no rationale was provided for the proposed amendments and thus it was difficult to ascertain why the amendments were being proposed.

The proposed amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial are as follows:

Amend RCM 703(b)(1) by inserting the following three sentences after the last sentence in RCM 703(b)(1):

With the consent of both the accused and Government, the military judge may authorize any witness to testify via remote means. Over a party's objection, the military judge may authorize any witness to testify on interlocutory questions via remote means or similar technology if the practical difficulties of producing the witness outweigh the significance of the witness' personal appearance. Factors to be considered include, but are not limited to the costs of producing the witness, the timing of the request for production of the witness, the potential delay in the interlocutory proceeding that may be caused by the production of the witness, the willingness of the witness to testify in person, and the likelihood of significant interference with military operational deployment, mission accomplishment, or essential training, and for child witnesses the traumatic effect of providing in-court testimony.

Add a new paragraph to the end of the Discussion which follows R.C.M. (b)(1) that reads:

The procedures for receiving testimony via remote means and the definition thereof are contained in R.C.M. 914B.

Amend the Analysis accompanying R.C.M. 703(b) by inserting the following paragraph:

“200_ Amendment: Subsection (b)(1) was amended to allow, under certain circumstances, the utilization of various types of remote testimony in lieu of the personal appearance of the witness.”

Amend the discussion to R.C.M. 802 by amending the last sentence of the discussion to read:

A conference may be conducted by remote means or similar technology consistent with the definition in R.C.M. 914B.

Amend R.C.M. 804(c)(2) to read:

(2) Procedure. The accused's absence will be conditional upon his being able to view the witness' testimony from a remote location. Normally, transmission of the testimony will include a system which will transmit the accused's image and voice into the courtroom from a remote location as well as transmission of the child's testimony from the courtroom to the accused's location. A one-way transmission may be used if deemed necessary by the military judge. The accused will also be provided private, contemporaneous communication with his counsel. The procedures described herein shall be employed unless the accused has made a knowing and affirmative waiver of these procedures.

Amend the Analysis accompanying R.C.M. 804(c) by inserting the following paragraph:

“200_ Amendment: The specific terminology of the manner in which remote live testimony may be transmitted was deleted to allow for technological advances in the methods used to transmit audio and visual information.”

Amend RCM 914A by deleting the third sentence of paragraph (a), which read, “However, such testimony should normally be taken via a two-way closed circuit television system” leaving the remaining paragraph which reads:

(a) General procedures . A child shall be allowed to testify out of the presence of the accused after the military judge has determined that the requirements of Mil. R. Evid. 611(d)(3) have been satisfied. The procedure used to take such testimony will be determined by the military judge based upon the exigencies of the situation. At a minimum, the following procedures shall be observed:

Amend RCM 914A by re-lettering current paragraph “(b)” to paragraph “(c)” and inserting new paragraph (b) which will read:

(b) Definition. As used in this rule, “remote live testimony” includes, but is not limited to, testimony by video-teleconference, closed circuit television, or similar techology.

Add a discussion section that reads:

For purposes of this rule, unlike R.C.M. 914B, remote means or similar technology does not include receiving testimony by telephone where the parties cannot see and hear each other.

Amend the Analysis accompanying R.C.M. 914A by inserting the following paragraph:

“200_ Amendment: The rule was amended to allow for technological advances in the methods used to transmit audio and visual information.”

Add new Rule R.C.M. 914B, which will read:

(a) General procedure. The military judge shall determine the procedures used to take testimony via remote means. At a minimum, all parties shall be able to hear each other, those in attendance at the remote site shall be identified, and the accused shall be permitted private, contemporaneous communication with his counsel.

(b) Definition. As used in this rule, testimony via “remote means” includes, but is not limited to, testimony by video-teleconference, closed circuit television, telephone, or similar technology.

This rule applies for all witness testimony other than child witness testimony specifically covered by M.R.E. 611(d) and R.C.M. 914A. When utilizing testimony via remote means, military justice practitioners are encouraged to consult the procedure used in In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation , 129 F.R.D. 424 (D.P.R. 1989) and to read United States v. Shabazz , 52 M.J. 585 (N.M.Ct. Crim. App. 1999); and United States v. Gigante , 166 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1999), cert denied , 528 U.S. 1114 (2000).

Add a new analysis section for R.C.M. 914B by inserting the following title and paragraph:

“200_Amendment: This rule describes the basic procedures that will be used when testimony of any witnesses, other than child witnesses pursuant to R.C.M. 914A, is received via remote means.”

Amend R.C.M 1001.(e)(2)(D) by deleting the “or” before “former testimony” and inserting “, or testimony by remote means” after “former testimony” so the paragraph reads as follows:

(D) Other forms of evidence, such as oral depositions, written interrogatories, former testimony, or testimony by remote means would not be sufficient to meet the needs of the court-martial in the determination of an appropriate sentence; and

Add new Discussion paragraph immediately following R.C.M. 1001(e)(2)(E) which will read:

The procedures for receiving testimony via remote means and the definition thereof are contained in R.C.M. 914B.

Amend the Analysis accompanying R.C.M. 1001(e) by inserting the following paragraph:

“200_ Amendment: Subsection (e)(2)(D) was amended to allow the availability of various types of remote testimony to be a factor to consider in whether a presentencing witness must be phyically produced.”

Amend Part IV, Punitive Articles, paragraph 4(c)(6) by inserting the following new subparagraph (f) and redesignating the existing subparagraph (f) as (g):

“(f) Article 119a—attempting to kill an unborn child”

Amend Appendix 23, Analysis of Punitive Articles

“200_ Amendment: In 4(c)(6), subparagraph (f) was redesignated as subparagraph (g) and a new subparagraph (f) was added to reflect the offense of attempting to kill an unborn child as established by the Unforn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-212, § 3, _ Stat. _, _ (2004) (art. 119a).

Amend Part IV, Punitive Articles, by inserting the new paragraph 44a to read:

a. Text.

“(a)(1) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section and shall, upon conviction, be punished by such punishment, other than death, as court-martial may direct, which shall be consistent with the punishments prescribed by the President for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.

(2) An offense under this section does not require proof that—

(i) the person engage in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or

(ii) the accused intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

(3) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall, instead of being punished under paragraph (1), be punished as provided under sections 880, 918, and 919(a) of this title (articles 80, 118, and 119(a)) for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.

(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a)are sections 918, 919(a), 919(b) (2), 920(a), 922, 924, 926, and 928 of this title (articles 118, 119(a), 119(b)(2), 120(a), 122, 124, 126, and 128),

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—

(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

(d) As used in this section, the term ‘unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero' or ‘child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

b. Elements.

(1) Injuring an unborn child.

(a) That the accused was engaged in the [(murder (article 118)), (voluntary manslaughter (article 119(a))), (involuntary manslaughter (article 119(b) (2))), (rape (article 120)), (robbery (article 122)), (maiming (article 124)), (assault (article 128)) of] or [burning or setting afire, as arson (article 126), of (a dwelling inhabited by) (a structure or property (known to be occupied by) (belonging to))] a woman;

(b) That the woman was then pregnant; and

(c) That the accused thereby caused bodily injury to the unborn child of that woman.

(2) Killing an unborn child.

(a) That the accused was engaged in the [(murder (article 118)), (voluntary manslaughter (article 119(a))), (involuntary manslaughter (article 119(b)(2))), (rape (article 120)), (robbery (article 122)), (maiming (article 124)), (assault (article 128)), of ] or [burning or setting afire, as arson (article 126), of (a dwelling inhabited by) (a structure or property known to (be occupied by) (belong to))] a woman; and

(b) That the woman was then pregnant; and

(c) That the accused thereby caused the death of the unborn child of that woman.

(3) Attempting to kill an unborn child.

(a) That the accused was engaged in the [(murder (article 118)), (voluntary manslaughter (article 119(a))), (involuntary manslaughter (article 119(b)(2))), (rape (article 120)), (robbery (article 122)), (maiming (article 124)), (assault (article 128)), of] or [burning or setting afire, as arson (article 126), of (a dwelling inhabited by) (a structure or property (known to be occupied by) (belonging to))] a woman; and

(b) That the woman was then pregnant; and

(c) That the accused thereby attempted to kill the unborn child of that woman.

(4) Intentionally killing an unborn child.

(a) That the accused was engaged in the [(murder (article 118)), (voluntary manslaughter (article 119(b)(2))), (rape (article 120)), (robbery (article 122)), (maiming (article 124)), (assault (article 128)), of] or [burning or setting afire, as arson (article 126), of (a dwelling inhabited by) (a structure or property (known to be occupied by) (belonging to))] a woman; and

(b) That the woman was then pregnant; and

(c) That the accused thereby intentionally killed the unborn child of that woman.

c. Explanation.

(1) Nature of offense. This article makes it a separate, punishable crime to cause the death of or bodily injury to an unborn child while engaged in arson (article 126, UCMJ) murder (article 118, UCMJ); voluntary manslaughter (article 119(a), UCMJ); involuntary manslaughter (article 119(b)(2), UCMJ; rape (article 120(a), UCMJ); robbery (article 122, UCMJ); maiming (article 124, UCMJ); or assault (article 128, UCMJ) against a pregnant woman. For all underlying offenses, except arson, this article requires that the victim of the underlying offense be the pregnant mother. For purposes of arson, the pregnant mother must have some nexus to the arson such that she sustained some “bodily unjury” due to the arson. For the purposes of this article the term “women” means a female of any age. This article does not permit the prosecution of any—

(i) person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(ii) person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(iii) woman with respect to her unborn child.

The offenses of “injuring an unborn child” and “killing an unborn child” do not require proof that—

(i) the person engaging in the conduct (the accused) had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or

(ii) the accused intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

(2) Bodily injury. For the purpose of this offense, the term “bodily injury” is that which is provided by 18 U.S.C. § 1365, to wit: a cut, abrasion, bruise, burn, or disfigurement; physical pain; illness; impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or any other injury to the body, no matter how temporary.

(3) Unborn child. “Unborn child” means a child in utero or a member of the species homo sapiens who is carried in the womb, at any stage of development, from conception to birth.

d. Lesser included offenses.

(1) Killing an unborn child.

(a) Article 119a—injuring an unborn child

(2) Intentionally killing an unborn child.

(a) Article 119a—killing an unborn child

(b) Article 119a—injuring an unborn child

(c) Article 119a—attempts (attempting to kill an unborn child)

e. Maximum punishment.

The maximum punishment for (1) Injuring an unborn child; (2) Killing an unborn child; (3) Attempting to kill an unborn child; or (4) Intentionally killing an unborn child is such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct, but shall be consistent with the punishment had the injury, death, attempt to kill or intentional killing occurred to the unborn child's mother.

f. Sample specifications.

(1) Injuring an unborn child.

In that ________ (personal jurisdiction data), did (at/on board—location), (subject-matter jurisdiction data, if required), on or about ______ 20 ______, cause bodily injury to the unborn child of ________, a pregnant woman, by engaging in the [(murder) (voluntary manslaughter) (involuntary manslaughter) (rape) (robbery) (maiming) (assault) of] [(burning) (setting afire) of (a dwelling inhabited by) (a structure or property known to (be occupied by) (belong to))] that woman.

(2) Killing an unborn child.

In that ________ (personal jurisdiction data), did (at/on board—location), (subject-matter jurisdiction data, if required), on or about ______ 20 ______, cause the death to the unborn child of ________, a pregnant woman, by engaging in the [(murder) (voluntary manslaughter) (involuntary manslaughter) (rape) (robbery) (maiming) (assault) of] [(burning) (setting afire) of (a dwelling inhabited by) (a structure or property known to (be occupied by) (belong to))] that woman.

(2) Killing an unborn child.

In that ________ (personal jurisdiction data), did (at/on board—location), (subject-matter jurisdiction data, if required), on or about ______ 20 ______, cause the death to the unborn child of ________, a pregnant woman, by engaging in the [(murder) (voluntary manslaughter) (involuntary manslaughter) (rape) (robbery) (maiming) (assault) of] [(burning) (setting afire) of (a dwelling inhabited by) (a structure or property known to (be occupied by) (belong to))] that woman.

(3) Attempting to kill an unborn child.

In that ________ (personal jurisdiction data), did (at/on board—location), (subject-matter jurisdiction data, if required), on or about ______ 20 ______, attempt to kill the unborn child of ________, a pregnant woman, by engaging in the [(murder) (voluntary manslaughter) (involuntary manslaughter) (rape) (robbery) (maiming) (assault) of] [(burning) (setting afire) of (a dwelling inhabited by) (a structure or property known to (be occupied by) (belong to))] that woman.

(4) Intentionally killing an unborn child.

In that ________ (personal jurisdiction data), did (at/on board—location), (subject-matter jurisdiction data, if required), on or about ______ 20 ______, intentionally kill the unborn child of ________, a pregnant woman, by engaging in the [(murder) (voluntary manslaughter) (involuntary manslaughter) (rape) (robbery) (maiming) (assault) of] [(burning) (setting afire) of (a dwelling inhabited by) (a structure or property known to (be occupied by) (belong to))] that woman.

Amend Appendix 12, maximum Punishment Chart by inserting the following before Article 120, rape:

Injuring or killing an unborn child Article 119a * * * Such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct but such punishment shall be consistent with the punishment had the bodily injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.

Attempting to kill an unborn child Article 119a * * * Such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct but such punishment shall be consistent with the punishment had the attempt been made to kill the unborn child's mother.

Intentional killing an unborn child Article 119a * * * Such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct but such punishment shall be consistent with the punishment had the killing occurred to the unborn child's mother.

Amend Appendix 23, Analysis of Punitive Articles by adding the following new analysis:

(c) Explanation. This paragraph is new and is based on Public Law 108-212, 18 U.S.C. 1841 and 10 U.S.C. 919a (Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004) enacted on 1 April 2004.

Amend paragraph 97, Article 134—(Pandering and prostitution) to add the new offense of patronizing a prostitute. The Article as amended will read:

a. Text. See paragraph 60.

b. Elements.

(1) Prostitution.

(a) That the accused had sexual intercourse with another person not the accused's spouse;

(b) That the accused did so for the purpose of receiving money or other compensation;

(c) That this act was wrongful; and

(d) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

(2) Patronizing a prostitute .

(a) That the accused had sexual intercourse with another person not the accused's spouse;

(b) That the accused compelled, induced, enticed, or procured such person to engage in an act of sexual intercourse in exchange for money or other compensation; and

(c) That this act was wrongful; and

(d) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

(3) Pandering by compelling, inducing, enticing, or procuring act of prostitution.

(a) That the accused compelled, induced, enticed, or procured a certain person to engage in an act of sexual intercourse for hire and reward with a person to be directed to said person by the accused;

(b) That this compelling, inducing, enticing, or procuring was wrongful; and

(c) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

(4) Pandering by arranging or receiving consideration for arranging for sexual intercourse or sodomy.

(a) That the accused arranged for, or received valuable consideration for arranging for, a certain person to engage in sexual intercourse or sodomy with another person;

(b) That the arranging (and receipt of consideration) was wrongful; and

(c) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

c. Explanation. Prostitution may be committed by males or females. Sodomy for money or compensation is not included in subparagraph b(1). Sodomy may be charged under paragraph 51. Evidence that sodomy was for money or compensation may be a matter in aggravation. See R.C.M. 1001(b)(4).

d. Lesser included offense. Article 80—attempts

e. Maximum punishment.

(1) Prostitution and patronizing a prostitute. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

(2) Pandering. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.

f. Sample specifications.

(1) Prostitution.

In that ________ (personal jurisdiction data), did, (at/on board—location) (subject-matter jurisdiction data, if required), on or about ______ 20 _, wrongfully engage in (an act) (acts) of sexual intercourse with ________, a person not his/her spouse, for the purpose of receiving (money) (____).

(2) Patronizing a prostitute.

In that ________ (personal jurisdiction data), did, (at/on board—location) (subject-matter jurisdiction data, if required), on or about ______ 20 _, wrongfully (compel) (induce) (entice) (procure ________, a person not his/her spouse, to engage in (an act) (acts) of sexual intercourse with the accused in exchange for (money) (________).

(3) Compelling, inducing, enticing, or procuring act of prostitution.

In that ________ (personal jurisdiction data), did, (at/on board—location) (subject-matter jurisdiction data, if required), on or about ________ 20 _, wrongfully (compel) (induce) (entice) (procure) ________ to engage in (an act) (acts) of (sexual intercourse for hire and reward with persons to be directed to him/her by the said ________.

(4) Arranging, or receiving consideration for arranging for sexual intercourse or sodomy.

In that ________ (personal jurisdiction data), did, (at/on board—location) (subject-matter jurisdiction data, if required), on or about ______ 20 _ wrongfully (arrange for) (receive valuable consideration, to wit: ______ on account of arranging for—) ________ to engage in (an act) (acts) of (sexual intercourse) (sodomy) with ________.

Amend Appendix 12, Maximum Punishment Chart by substituting “Prostitution and patronizing a prostitute” for “Prostitution.”

Amend Appendix 23, Analysis of Punitive Articles by amending the Analysis accompanying paragraph 97 by adding the following:

“200_Amendment: b. Elements. Subparagraph (2) defines the elements of the offense of patronizing a prostitute. Old subparagraphs (2) and (3) are now (3) and (4) respectively.”

Summary: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, Notice is hereby given that the Panel will hold a public teleconference and meeting to conduct a peer review of EPA's Framework for Inorganic Metals Risk Assessment. The dates and times for the teleconference and meeting are provided above.

Background: Background on the meeting described in this notice was provided in a Federal Register Notice published on July 29, 2004 (69 FR 45314-45315). EPA has been undertaking an effort to develop cross-Agency guidance for assessing the human health and ecological hazards and risks of metals and metal compounds. EPA developed the draft guidance document entitled, “Framework for Inorganic Metals Risk Assessment,” to supplement previous EPA guidance for use in site-specific risk assessments, criteria derivation, and other similar Agency activities related to metals. The guidance is organized around the risk assessment paradigm. The document provides a conceptual model that highlights areas where consideration of metal-specific information is necessary and advantageous when conducting risk assessments. It outlines recommendations for conducting risk assessment for metals and metal compounds based on the unique attributes of these compounds. The guidance document also discusses metal-specific issues related to environmental chemistry, exposure, bioaccumulation and bioavailability, ecological effects, and human health effects. In addition, the guidance discusses research underway, planned, and needed to reduce uncertainty in metals risk assessment.

The Panel will meet with Agency Program representatives by teleconference prior to the face-to-face meeting to discuss charge questions and ask clarifying questions about the Framework for Inorganic Metals Risk Assessment. At the face-to-face meeting, the Panel will conduct a peer review of the Framework for Inorganic Metals Risk Assessment.

Availability of Meeting Materials: A roster of Panel members, their biosketches, the charge to the SAB panel, and the meeting agendas will be posted on the SAB Web site prior to the meetings. EPA's Framework for Metals Risk Assessment may be found at: http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/raf/recordisplay.cfm?deid=88903.

Procedures for Providing Public Comments: It is the policy of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The SAB Staff Office expects that public statements presented at SAB Metals Risk Assessment Review Panel meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements. Oral Comments: In general, each individual or group requesting an oral presentation at a face-to-face meeting will be limited to a total time of ten minutes (unless otherwise indicated). In general, for teleconference meetings, opportunities for oral comment will be limited to no more than three minutes per speaker and no more than fifteen minutes total. Interested parties should contact the DFO in writing (e-mail, fax or mail—see contact information above) by close of business January 19, 2004 in order to be placed on the public speaker list for the teleconference, and by close of business January 24, 2004 in order to be placed on the public speaker list for the face-to face meeting. Speakers should bring at least 35 copies of their comments and presentation slides for distribution to the participants and public at the meeting. Written Comments: Although the SAB Staff Office accepts written comments until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated), written comments should be received in the SAB Staff Office at least seven business days prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the panel for their consideration. Comments should be supplied to the DFO at the address/contact information noted above in the following formats: one hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat, WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format). Those providing written comments and who attend the meeting are also asked to bring 35 copies of their comments for public distribution.

Meeting Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodation to access the public meetings listed above should contact the DFO at least five business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

The purpose of this SAB telephone conference meeting is to conduct a public review and discussion of the two SAB draft reports; Review of EPA's Drinking Water Research Program Multi-Year Plan 2003, and Advisory on the Office of Research and Development's Contaminated Sites and RCRA Multi-Year Plans. The focus of the discussion will consider if: (i) The original charge questions to the SAB review panels have been adequately addressed in the draft reports, (ii) the draft reports are clear and logical; (iii) the conclusions drawn, or recommendations made in the draft reports, are supported by the body of the reports; and (iv) if there are any obvious technical errors, omissions, or issues that are inadequately dealt with in the draft reports.

Availability of Review Material for the Board Meeting: Documents that are the subject of this meeting are available on the SAB Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/sab/drrep.htm .

Procedures for Providing Public Comment: The SAB Staff Office accepts written public comments of any length, and accommodates oral public comments whenever possible. The SAB Staff Office expects that public statements presented at SAB meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements. Oral Comments: In general, each individual or group requesting an oral presentation at a teleconference meeting will usually be limited to no more than three minutes per speaker and no more than fifteen minutes total. Interested parties should contact the DFO noted above in writing via e-mail at least one week prior to the meeting in order to be placed on the public speaker list for the meeting. Speakers should provide an electronic copy of their comments for distribution to interested parties and participants in the meeting. Written Comments: Although written comments are accepted until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated), written comments should be received in the SAB Staff Office at least one week prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the committee for their consideration. Comments should be supplied to the DFO at the address/contact information above in the following formats: one hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat, WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files (in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format).

Meeting Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodation to access this teleconference meeting, should contact the DFO at least five business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

I. General Information

Proposed agenda items for the meeting include, but are not limited to: Discussion of the BOSC's review of ORD's Coastal Condition Report; update on subcommittees for mercury and computational toxicology; update on program review subcommittees for endocrine disruptors, global change, human health, particulate matter, drinking water, and ecological; update on the BOSC risk assessment workshop in February 2005; update on ORD communications activities; briefing on ORD's National Homeland Security Research Center (management and communications plans); National Academy of Science presentation on models in the regulatory decision process; update on EPA's Science Advisory Board activities; and future issues and plans (including the Communications and Nomination Subcommittees). The meeting is open to the public.

Information on Services for the Handicapped: Individuals requiring special accommodations at this meeting should contact Lorelei Kowalski, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 564-3408, at least five business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made to facilitate their participation.

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. ORD-2004-0024. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Documents in the official public docket are listed in the index in EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EDOCKET. Documents may be available either electronically or in hard copy. Electronic documents may be viewed through EDOCKET. Hard copy of the draft agenda may be viewed at the Board of Scientific Counselors, Executive Committee Meeting—Winter 2005 Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the ORD Docket is (202) 566-1752.

2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EDOCKET. You may use EDOCKET at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period.

1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

i. EDOCKET. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EDOCKET at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet home page, http://www.epa.gov, select “Information Sources,” “Dockets,” and “EDOCKET.” Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in Docket ID No. ORD-2004-0024. The system is an anonymous access system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to ORD.Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. ORD-2004-0024. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an anonymous access system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.B.2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By Mail. Send your comments to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORD Docket, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. ORD-2004-0024.

3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. ORD-2004-0024 (note: this is not a mailing address). Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.A.1.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through EDOCKET, regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

i. Identify the action by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

ii. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

On December 23, 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final memorandum in the Federal Register (68 FR 74233) that outlined its revised policy regarding regulatory requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for properties that submeter for water usage. Through the revised policy memorandum, as a way to promote full cost and conservation pricing to achieve water conservation, the EPA changed its long standing interpretation of SDWA section 1411 as it applies to submetered properties. Under the revised policy, a property owner who had not previously been (or would not be) subject to SDWA national primary drinking water regulations through SDWA section 1411, and who installs submeters to accurately track usage of water by tenants on his or her property, will not then be subject to SDWA regulations solely as a result of taking the action to submeter and bill. EPA took this action because the Agency believed that water submetering promotes water conservation. The data and information available to EPA in December of 2003 did not show that allocated billing systems, such as ratio utility billing systems (RUBS) and hot water hybrid (HWH) systems, would promote water conservation. Therefore, EPA did not include other billing systems in the final revised policy.

The findings of a new two-year study of water billing practices in the multi-family residential sector, released on August 30, 2004, show the water conservation benefits of submetering. The study was conducted by Aquacraft, Inc. of Boulder, Colorado, the National Research Center, and Potomac Resources. The study underwent extensive peer review and was sponsored by EPA, National Apartment Association, National Multi Housing Council, City of Austin, City of Phoenix, City of Portland, City of Tucson, Denver Water Department, East Bay Municipal Utility District, San Antonio Water System, San Diego County Water Authority, Seattle Public Utilities, and Southern Nevada Water Authority. A copy of the study can be accessed at EPA Docket ID No. OW-2004-0039. The study showed that “Submetering was found to achieve statistically significant water savings of 15.3 percent (21.8 gal/day/unit) compared to traditional in-rent properties after correcting for factors * * *” In addition, “This study found no evidence that Ratio Utility Billing Systems (RUBS) reduced water use by a statistically significant amount compared with traditional in-rent arrangements, and the data showed that the difference between water use in RUBS and in-rent properties was not statistically different from zero”.

The findings and recommendations of the study will help EPA and the drinking water industry better understand current mechanisms available to facilitate water conservation in multi-family housing. EPA strongly supports water conservation efforts, and encourages all actions to promote conservation by renters, homeowners, apartment owners, and water systems.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0804.

Title: Universal Service “ Health Care Providers Universal Service Program.

Form Nos.: FCC Forms 465, 466, 466-A and 467.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, and State, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 14,440.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1-3 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion and annual reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 17,720 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The Commission implemented the rural health care mechanism at the direction of Congress as provided in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act). In past years of its operation, the rural health care mechanism has provided discounts that have facilitated the ability of health care providers to provide critical access to modern telecommunications and information services for medical and health maintenance purposes to rural America. Participation in the rural health care universal service support mechanism, however, has not met the Commission's projections.

In the Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, released on December 17, 2004, in FCC 04-289, the Commission modifies the definition of “rural” for purposes of the rural health care universal service support mechanism. The Commission also revises its policy to allow mobile rural health care clinics to receive discounts for telecommunications services. In addition, the Commission permits States and territories that are entirely rural to receive funding for advanced telecommunications and information services. The Commission also establishes a deadline for filing the FCC Form 466. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether support for Internet access should be increased and whether support should be provided for upgrades to the public switched or backbone telecommunications networks.

This is a summary of the Commission's Public Notice DA 04-3921, released December 16, 2004. On August 1, 2003, the Commission released a Declaratory Ruling, published at 68 FR 55898, September 29, 2003, in CC Docket No. 98-67; FCC 03-190. In the Declaratory Ruling, the Commission clarified that certain TRS mandatory minimum standards do not apply to captioned telephone VCO service. When filing comments, please reference CC Docket No. 98-67 and CG Docket No. 03-123. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comment to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit electronic comments by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, “get form <your e-mail address>.” A sample form and directions will be sent in reply. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by electronic media, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Services mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor, Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings or electronic media for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial and electronic media sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-B204 Washington, DC 20554. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their comments on diskette. These diskettes should be submitted, along with three paper copies, to: Dana Jackson, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A626, Washington, DC 20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using Word 97 or compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be submitted in “read only” mode. The diskette should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name, proceeding (including the lead docket number in this case, CC Docket No. 98-67 and CG Docket No. 03-123, type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should also include the following phrase “Disk Copy—Not an Original.” Each diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, preferably in a single electronic file. In addition, commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing (BCPI), Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Pursuant to § 1.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206, this proceeding will be conducted as a permit-but-disclose proceeding in which ex parte communications are subject to disclosure. The full text of this document and copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document and copies of subsequently filed documents in this matters may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contract, BCPI, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact BCPI, Inc. at their Web site http://www.bcpiweb.com or call 1-800-378-3160. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). The Public Notice can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro.

On December 7, 2004, Ultratec, Inc., Sprint Corporation, and Hamilton Relay, Inc., (“the Petitioners”) filed a Request for Clarification, ( see Ultratec, Inc., Sprint Corporation, and Hamilton Relay, Inc., Request for Clarification, CC Docket No. 98-67 and CG Docket No. 03-123, filed December 7, 2004), seeking clarification that a two-line voice carryover (VCO) service called two-line captioned telephone VCO service is a form of telecommunications relay service (TRS) eligible for reimbursement from the Interstate TRS Fund. On December 10, 2004, the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. (“NECA”), ( see National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., Petition for Declaratory Ruling, CC Docket No. 98-67 and CG Docket No. 03-123, filed December 10, 2004), on behalf of the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Advisory Council (“the Council”), filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling requesting that the Commission approve its proposed methodology for the jurisdictional allocation of costs for the provision of inbound two-line captioned telephone VCO service. NECA proposes that ten percent of the inbound two-line captioned telephone VCO service minutes would be allocated for payment from the Interstate TRS Fund. Captioned telephone service is an enhanced VCO service. See generally Telecommunications Relay Services, and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Declaratory Ruling, CC Docket No. 98-67, FCC 03-190, 68 FR 55898, September 29, 2003, finding that captioned telephone VCO service is a form of TRS eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund. VCO service is a type of TRS used by persons who have a hearing disability but are able to speak directly to the other end user. The communications assistant types the response back to the person with the hearing disability, but does not voice the conversation.

See 47 CFR 64.601(18). Captioned telephone VCO service permits the user to both listen to what is said over the telephone and simultaneously read captions of what the other person is saying.

The PCMR acts in an advisory capacity to the President and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on a broad range of topics relating to programs, services, and supports for persons with intellectual disabilities. The Committee, by Executive Order, is responsible for evaluating the adequacy of current practices in programs, services and supports for persons with intellectual disabilities, and for reviewing legislative proposals that impact on the quality of life that is experienced by citizens with intellectual disabilities and their families.

In accordance with the requirements in 33 CFR 127.009, the U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) Providence is preparing a Letter of Recommendation as to the suitability of the Narragansett Bay waterways for liquefied natural gas (LNG) marine traffic. The Letter of Recommendation will be issued in response to a Letter of Intent to operate a LNG facility at the Keyspan facility in Providence, RI. On September 1, 2004, the COTP Providence published a Federal Register Notice seeking comments on the suitability of Narragansett Bay and the Providence River to accommodate LNG marine traffic. (See the Federal Register , Vol. 69, No. 169, Wednesday, September 1, 2004, pages 53454-53455.) A total of 4 public comments were received by the November 1, 2004 deadline, of which only one of them requested that the Coast Guard hold a public meeting. Consequently, the Coast Guard will co-sponsor two public hearings at the time and place described in the Public Meeting paragraph below.

We intend to hold two public meetings to receive comments on navigation safety issues pertaining to the proposed LNG facility at the Keyspan, Providence, RI site. The times, dates, and locations for this meeting are:

(1) 6:45 p.m., Tuesday, January 11, 2005, at the Roger Williams Middle School, 278 Thurbers Avenue, Providence, Rhode Island.

(2) 6:45 p.m., Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at the Gaudet Middle School, 1113 Aquidneck Avenue, Middletown, Rhode Island.

Additional information about the Keyspan LNG project is available from FERC's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC internet Web site ( http://www.ferc.gov ) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, then click on “General Search” and enter FERC's docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field ( i.e. , CP04-36). For assistance, please contact FERC online support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY contact 1-202-502-8659.

Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with Sections 10(a) and (b) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee was established under section 604(a)(3) of the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4503(a)(3). The Committee is charged with providing recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret manufactured home construction and safety standards and procedural and enforcement regulations, and with developing and recommending proposed model installation standards to the Secretary.

The purpose of this conference call meeting is for the Committee to review and make recommendations to the Secretary on proposed changes to title 24, Code of Federal Regulations, part 3282, sections 401 through 418.

Tentative Agenda:

A. Roll Call.

B. Welcome and Opening Remarks.

C. Full Committee meeting and take actions proposed changes to 24 CFR part 3282, Subpart I of the Regulations.

D. Public Testimony.

E. Adjournment.

Applicant: Marvin Miller, Spring Branch, Texas. Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to survey for and collect the following species within Texas: Helotes mold beetle ( Batrisodes venyivi ), Madla cave meshweaver ( Cicurina madla ), Bracken Bat Cave meshweaver ( Cicurina venii ), Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver ( Cicurina vespera ), Government Canyon Bat Cave spider ( Neoleptoneta microps ), ground beetle ( Rhadine exilis ), and ground beetle ( Rhadine infernalis ).

Applicant: SWCA-Flagstaff, Flagstaff, Arizona. Applicant requests an amendment to an existing permit to allow salvage and holding of salvaged specimens of the following species within Arizona: black-footed ferret ( Mustela nigripes ), Hualapai Mexican vole ( Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis ), lesser long-nosed bat ( Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuensis ), bald eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus ), cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl ( Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum ), California condor ( Gymnogyps californianus ), northern aplomado falcon ( Falco femoralis septentrionalis ), southwestern willow flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii extimus ), Yuma clapper rail ( Rallus longirostris yumanensis ), and Sonoran tiger salamander ( Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi ).

Applicant: KBA EnviroScience, Lewisville, Texas. Applicant requests an amendment to an existing permit to allow presence/absence surveys for the following species within Texas: black-capped vireo ( Vireo atricapillus ), brown pelican ( Pelecanus occidentalis ), golden-cheeked warbler ( Dendroica chrysoparia ), interior least tern ( Sterna antillarum ), northern aplomado falcon ( Falco femoralis septentrionalis ), piping plover ( Charadrius melodus ), red-cockaded woodpecker ( Picoides borealis ), southwestern willow flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii extimus ), Houston toad ( Bufo houstonensis ), Clear Creek gambusia ( Gambusia heterochir ), fountain darter ( Etheostoma fonticola ), and San Marcos gambusia ( Gambusia georgei ).

Applicant: SWCA-Albuquerque, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Applicant requests an amendment to an existing permit to allow surveys for and collection of Rio Grande silvery minnow ( Hybognathus amarus ) within New Mexico.

Applicant: Hugo Magana, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to survey for and collect Rio Grande silvery minnow ( Hybognathus amarus ) within New Mexico.

Applicant: Jon Nelson, Phoenix, Arizona. Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to allow presence/absence surveys and nest monitoring of cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls ( Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum ) and southwestern willow flycatchers ( Empidonax traillii extimus ) within Arizona.

Applicant: Azimuth Forestry Services, Shelbyville, Texas. Applicant requests a new permit for research and recovery purposes to conduct presence/absence surveys for red-cockaded woodpeckers ( Picoides borealis ) within Texas. Applicant additionally requests authorization to survey for and collect voucher specimens of the following species within Texas: Navasota ladies'-tresses ( Spiranthes parksii ), Texas prairie dawn-flower ( Hymenoxys texana ), and Texas trailing phlox ( Phlox nivalis ssp. texensis ).

Restoring an endangered or threatened animal or plant to the point where it is again a secure, self-sustaining member of its ecosystem is a primary goal of the Service's endangered species program. To help guide the recovery effort, the Service is working to prepare Recovery Plans for most of the listed species native to the United States. Recovery Plans describe actions considered necessary for conservation of species, establish criteria for downlisting or delisting them, and estimate time and cost for implementing the recovery measures needed.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S. C. 1531 et seq. ) requires the development of Recovery Plans for listed species unless such a Plan would not promote the conservation of a particular species. Section 4(f) of the Act, as amended in 1988, requires that public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment be provided during Recovery Plan development. The Service will consider all information presented during a public comment period prior to approval of each new or revised Recovery Plan. The Service and other Federal agencies will also take these comments into account in the course of implementing Recovery Plans.

The document submitted for review is the draft revised Recovery Plan for the whooping crane. In the United States, the whooping crane ( Grus americana ) was listed as Threatened with Extinction in 1967 and Endangered in 1970—both listings were “grandfathered” into the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Critical habitat was designated in 1978. In Canada, it was designated as Endangered in 1978 by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada; critical habitat will be designated upon publication of the final recovery strategy on the Species at Risk Act public registry.

Whooping cranes occur only in North America. About 300 individuals exist in the wild at 3 locations, and about 133 whooping cranes are in captivity at 8 sites. Only the Aransas-Wood Buffalo National Park Population that nests in Canada and winters in coastal marshes in Texas is self-sustaining with nearly 200 in the flock. With so few individuals surviving, the population remains in danger of extinction. Historic population declines resulted from habitat destruction, shooting, and displacement by activities of man. Current threats include limited genetics, loss and degradation of migration stopover habitat, collisions with power lines, and degradation of coastal habitat and threat of chemical spills.

The draft revised Recovery Plan includes scientific information about the species and provides objectives and actions needed to downlist the species. Recovery actions designed to achieve these objectives include protection and enhancement of the breeding, migration, and wintering habitat for the AWBP to allow the wild flock to grow and reach ecological and genetic stability, reintroduction and establishment of geographically separate self-sustaining wild flocks to ensure resilience to catastrophic events, and maintenance of a captive breeding flock to protect against extinction that is genetically managed to retain a minimum of 90% of the whooping crane's genetic material for 100 years.

The downlisting criteria proposed in the draft revised Recovery Plan are: (1) A minimum of 40 productive pairs in the AWBP and a minimum of 25 productive pairs occurring in self-sustaining populations at each of two other discrete locations (population targets of 160 in the AWBP and 100 at each of the other locations); and (2) 21 productive pairs in captivity as a safeguard to ensure long-term survival of the species (population target of 153). Criteria to delist the species are not being proposed at this time.

The Whooping Crane draft revised Recovery Plan is being submitted for review to all interested parties, including technical peer review. After consideration of comments received during the review period, the recovery plan will be submitted for final approval.

The Service solicits written comments on the draft revised Recovery Plan described. All comments received by the date specified above will be considered prior to approval of the final Recovery Plan.

The authority for this action is Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f).

This survey was executed at the request of the U.S. Forest Service and was necessary to delineate Forest Service lands. The lands we surveyed are:

We will place copies of the plat, in 5 sheets, and related field notes we described in the open files. They will be available to the public as a matter of information.

If BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on this plat, in five sheets, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest.

We will not officially file this plat, in five sheets, until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions or appeals.

The authority to revise the Colorado River Management Plan (CRMP) came as a result of a year-long negotiation to settle a lawsuit filed against the Park in U.S. District Court in Arizona in July, 2000. The settlement agreement directed the NPS to address specific issues including allocation of use between commercial and non-commercial users, and level of motorized rafting use. Given the complexity of the document and the intense level of interest, the comment period is being extended. The Park Service published the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register of October 1, 2004 (Vol. 69, No. 190). The notice stated that the Draft EIS would remain available for 90 days from the publication of the notice. The Park Service published the Notice of Availability in the EPA Federal Register Environmental Documents on October 8, 2004 (EIS No. 040465).

The Board is established under section 242 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Public Law 105-220 (20 U.S.C. 9252). The Board consists of ten individuals appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Board advises and makes recommendations to the Interagency Group. The Interagency Group is composed of the Secretaries of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services, and the three Secretaries administer the National Institute for Literacy (Institute). The Interagency Group considers the Board's recommendations in planning the goals of the Institute and in implementing any programs to achieve those goals. Specifically, the Board performs the following functions: (a) Makes recommendations concerning the appointment of the Director and the staff of the Institute; (b) provides independent advice on operation of the Institute; and (c) receives reports from the Interagency Group and the Institute's Director.

The National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board will meet February 2-3, 2005. On February 2, 2005 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and February 3, 2005 from 9:20 a.m. to 5 p.m., an open meeting will be held to discuss the Institute's performance measures; gather information on current issues in adolescent literacy and other literacy issues; and other Board business as necessary. On February 3, 2005 from 8:30 a.m. to 9:15 a.m., the Board meeting will be closed to the public to discuss personnel issues, including the search for a permanent director for NIFL. This discussion relates to the internal personnel rules and practices of the Institute and is likely to disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The discussion must therefore be held in closed session under exemptions 2 and 6 of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6). A summary of the activities at the closed session and related matters that are informative to the public and consistent with the policy of 5 U.S.C. 552b will be available to the public within 14 days of the meeting.

Records are kept of all Advisory Board proceedings and are available for public inspection at the National Institute for Literacy, 1775 I Street, NW., Suite 730, Washington, DC 20006, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an exemption, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from the provisions of 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3), to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD or the licensee). The requested exemption (in conjunction with a conforming license amendment) would relieve SMUD from the requirement to submit an annual radioactive effluent report for the Rancho Seco Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). SMUD submitted the exemption request by letter dated July 19, 2004, in which it also requested an amendment to the Rancho Seco ISFSI license; specifically, the deletion of Technical Specification 5.5.2., Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program, item (d). The licensee is currently storing spent nuclear fuel at the Rancho Seco ISFSI on the site of the decommissioned Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station in Sacramento County, California.

Identification of Proposed Action: SMUD has requested both an exemption and a conforming license amendment to obtain relief from the requirement to submit an annual radioactive effluent report for the Rancho Seco ISFSI. According to 10 CFR 72.44(d), each 10 CFR part 72 license must include technical specifications regarding radioactive effluents. Specifically, 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) requires that an annual report be submitted to the NRC, specifying the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to the environment in liquid and in gaseous effluents during the previous 12 months of ISFSI operation. In addition to the regulation itself, the Rancho Seco ISFSI Technical Specifications (Appendix to License No. SNM-2510), section 5.5.2, Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program, item d., requires an annual report to be submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3).

The proposed action before the NRC is whether to grant the exemption and conforming amendment.

Need for the Proposed Action: The requirements of 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) and Rancho Seco ISFSI Technical Specification 5.5.2.d. impose certain regulatory obligations, with associated costs, on the licensee. In its Safety Evaluation Report related to the ISFSI license, the staff found that there are no credible scenarios by which liquid or gaseous effluents could be released from the dry shielded canister. The licensee further stated that any concerns over small quantities of gaseous or liquid effluent that may be produced during cask loading and transfer decontamination activities are no longer relevant, since all the spent fuel has been transferred to the ISFSI, and that the NUHOMS-24P dry cask storage system used at the Rancho Seco ISFSI is a passive system which, by design, produces no gaseous or liquid effluent.

Granting the requested exemption and approving the conforming amendment will relieve the licensee from the requirement to submit an annual radioactive effluent report pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3). The requirement to submit an annual radioactive effluent monitoring report is not needed for this facility in its current configuration and is an unnecessary administrative burden. Thus, the licensee would not have to incur the costs associated with preparing and submitting an annual ISFSI radioactive effluent report.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: The NRC has reviewed the exemption request submitted by the licensee and determined that not requiring the licensee to submit an annual report pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) is an administrative change and would have no significant impacts to the environment.

Further, NRC has evaluated the impact to public safety that would result in granting the requested exemption. NRC determined that not requiring the licensee to submit an annual report specifying principal radionuclides released to the environment in liquid and in gaseous effluents does not impact pubic safety because the design basis for the Rancho Seco ISFSI is such that it is a passive system that generates no effluents during fuel storage. Thus, there should be no releases to the environment of either liquid or gaseous effluents from normal operations of the Rancho Seco ISFSI.

The proposed actions would not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes would be made to the types of effluents that may be released offsite, and there would be no increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Additionally, the proposed action would have no significant non-radiological impacts.

Alternative to the Proposed Action: As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the exemption and conforming amendment requests ( i.e. , the “no-action” alternative). Approval or denial of the exemption and conforming amendment requests would result in no change in the environmental impacts. Therefore, the environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.

Agencies and Persons Consulted: The NRC staff prepared this environmental assessment (EA); no other sources were used. On September 28, 2004, the staff contacted Mr. Steven Hsu of the California Department of Health Services, Radiologic Health Branch, and subsequently provided him a draft copy of this EA for review. The State of California responded to the NRC by e-mail on October 1, 2004, and stated it had no comments at this time on the EA or the Finding of No Significant Impact. The NRC staff has determined that consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required for this specific exemption, which involves an administrative change and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity having the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Conclusions: The staff has reviewed the exemption and conforming amendment requests submitted by SMUD and has determined that relieving the licensee from the requirement to submit an annual radioactive effluent report pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) and the Rancho Seco ISFSI Technical Specifications is an administrative change, and would have no significant impact on the environment.

The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed in accordance with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51. Based upon the foregoing EA, the NRC finds that the proposed action of granting the exemption and approving the conforming amendment to the license will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption and conforming amendment is not warranted.

The request for the exemption and amendment was docketed under 10 CFR Part 72, Docket 72-11. For further details with respect to this action, see the request for the exemption and proposed license amendment dated July 19, 2004. The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. However, as of October 25, 2004, the NRC initiated an additional security review of publicly available documents to ensure that potentially sensitive information is removed from the ADAMS database accessible through the NRC's Web site. Interested members of the public should check the NRC's Web pages for updates on the availability of documents through the ADAMS system. When public availability is restored, these documents may be accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html . After resumption of public access to ADAMS, copies of the referenced documents will also be available for review at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. PDR reference staff can be contacted at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov . The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.

The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee from the SEC's Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (telephone (202) 942-8090).

1. IDS Life is a stock life insurance company organized in 1957 under the laws of the State of Minnesota. It conducts a conventional life insurance business. IDS Life is registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers. IDS Life is a wholly owned subsidiary of American Express Financial Corporation (“AEFC”). IDS Life is the issuer and principal underwriter of the Contracts funded through the Accounts.

2. Account 10 is a segregated asset account of IDS Life. Account 10 funds the variable benefits available under RAVA Advantage Plus. Account 10 and its component subaccounts are registered together with the Commission as a single unit investment trust under the Act (File No. 811-07355).

3. The Old Accounts are segregated asset accounts of IDS Life. The Old Accounts fund the variable benefits available under the IDS Life Variable Retirement Annuity (“VRA”), the IDS Life Combination Retirement Annuity (“CRA”), the IDS Life Flexible Annuity (“Flex”) and the IDS Life Employee Benefit Annuity (“EBA”). The Old Accounts are registered together with the Commission as a single unit investment trust under the Act (File No. 811-3217).

4. Applicants assert that in recent years the variable annuity marketplace has become increasingly competitive. Many of the purchasers of variable annuity contracts in the 1980s and early 1990s are at, or close to, the expiration of their contingent deferred sales charge (“CDSC”) periods, and the contract values of many contracts are no longer subject to a CDSC. Holders of such contracts have become prime targets for competitors' variable annuity sales efforts. One feature offered to variable annuity purchasers is a “bonus” or “credit” funded from the insurer's general account, generally ranging from 1-4% of contract value. IDS Life has experienced the effects of these “bonus offers” through the loss of a portion of its Old Contracts.

5. IDS Life states that its competitors are permitted to make bonus offers to IDS Life's Old Contract owners because offers of exchange to contract owners of unaffiliated insurance companies are not prohibited by Section 11 of the Act by virtue of a no-action position granted to Alexander Hamilton Funds (pub. avail. July 20, 1994) (“Alexander Hamilton”). Applicants state that Alexander Hamilton stands for the proposition that, except for limited exceptions, exchange offers between unaffiliated investment companies are not prohibited under section 11. Consistent with section 11(a), therefore, a fund may impose a CDSC on shares purchased by investors with proceeds of shares from an unaffiliated fund.

6. Applicants assert that, but for the existence of the affiliated nature of the exchange, IDS Life would be able to offer an exchange program to its existing Old Contract owners that is similar to its competitors' programs. However, unlike its competitors who may make bonus offers to Old Contract owners, IDS Life is constrained from making a similar offer without first obtaining Commission approval of the terms of the exchange.

7. Applicants state that in response to this competitive dilemma, IDS Life developed an offer of exchange. On March 12, 2002, the Commission issued an order approving the terms of the offer of exchange (“Existing Exchange Offer”) that permits eligible contract owners to exchange Old Contracts for American Express Retirement Advisor Advantage sm Variable Annuity (“RAVA Advantage”) contracts issued by IDS Life and made available through Account 10 (“Existing Order”). RAVA Advantage is an enhanced contract that offers a lower mortality and expense risk (“M&E”) charge than the Old Contracts, credits (“Purchase Payment Credits”) on certain payments to the contracts (initial payments and subsequent additional payments to the contracts are referred to herein individually as a “Purchase Payment” and collectively as “Purchase Payments”), more subaccounts investing in corresponding funds or portfolios (collectively, “Investment Funds”) and optional enhanced death benefits. IDS Life applies a credit to certain exchanges (“Exchange Credit” and collectively with Purchase Payment Credits, “Credits”) that is in addition to any Purchase Payment Credit for which the contract owner would otherwise be eligible under the RAVA Advantage contract.

8. When a contract owner exchanges into a RAVA Advantage contract, he or she can allocate the Purchase Payment to any of the Investment Funds available under RAVA Advantage. If a contract owner exercises the free look option, IDS Life reverses either the RAVA Advantage contract value (less any Credits) or the Purchase Payment made to the RAVA Advantage contract, depending on applicable law. IDS Life applies this amount to restore the Old Contract to the extent possible. IDS Life allocates this amount to the selected Old Contract investments in the proportions that existed just prior to the exchange. Any adjustments made due to investment experience are allocated or deducted according to the selected investment percentage allocations under the Old Contract just prior to the exchange. Withdrawals made after the free look period under RAVA Advantage has expired are governed by the terms of the RAVA Advantage contract, including application of the CDSC. To the extent a death benefit or surrender payment included any Credit amounts applied within twelve months preceding: (i) The date of death that results in a lump sum death benefit under RAVA Advantage; or (ii) a request for a CDSC waiver due to the owner or annuitant's confinement to a nursing home, IDS Life will recapture the Credits.

9. In February 2004, IDS Life began selling RAVA Advantage Plus in approved States. RAVA Advantage Plus is an enhanced version of RAVA Advantage and is available as a nonqualified annuity for after-tax contributions only, or as a qualified annuity under certain retirement plans. RAVA Advantage Plus—Band 3 is available to current or retired employees of AEFC and their spouses (collectively, “Employees”); current or retired financial advisors who are registered representatives of IDS Life and their spouses (collectively, “Advisors”); or individuals who, with IDS Life's approval, invest an initial Purchase Payment of $1,000,000 or more (collectively, “Band 3 Contracts”). RAVA Advantage Plus offers an additional death benefit, additional Purchase Payment Credits under Band 3 Contracts, different Investment Funds, guarantee period accounts (“GPAs”), an optional guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit (“Withdrawal Benefit”), different transfer provisions and additional features such as a special dollar-cost averaging program. If an Old Contract owner exchanged into a RAVA Advantage Plus contract, he or she could allocate Purchase Payments to any of the Investment Funds available under RAVA Advantage Plus, including most of the Investment Funds available under the Old Contract, as well as Investment Funds that are not available under the Old Contract. To the extent a death benefit or surrender payment included any Credit amounts applied within twelve months preceding: (i) The date of death that results in a lump sum death benefit under RAVA Advantage Plus; (ii) a request for a CDSC waiver due to the owner or owner's spouse's confinement to a nursing home or hospital or the owner's terminal illness; or (iii) the owner's settlement under an annuity payout plan, IDS Life will recapture the Credits. If a non-natural person owns the RAVA Advantage Plus contract, the benefits and distributions under the contract are based on the life of the annuitant.

10. Applicants now seek an Amended Order to approve extending the terms of the Existing Exchange Offer to permit the exchange of the Old Contracts for new RAVA Advantage Plus contracts in those states where RAVA Advantage Plus is approved (“Extended Exchange Offer”). The terms of the Extended Exchange Offer would be substantially similar to those described in the Existing Order. Applicants state that the Extended Exchange Offer, like the Existing Exchange Offer, is designed to respond to IDS Life's competitive dilemma and to assure that persisting contract owners who accept the Extended Exchange Offer receive an immediate and enduring economic benefit.

11. The primary differences between RAVA Advantage and RAVA Advantage Plus are as follows:

Both RAVA Advantage and RAVA Advantage Plus may be issued as a non-qualified annuity for after-tax contributions only, or as a qualified annuity under the following retirement plans: (i) Individual Retirement Annuities, including Roth IRAs (collectively, “IRAs”); (ii) SIMPLE IRAs; (iii) Simplified Employee Pension (“SEP”) plans; (iv) plans under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Code”) (“section 401(k) Plans”); (v) custodial and trusteed plans under section 401(a) of the Code (“section 401(a) Plans”); or (vi) Tax-Sheltered Annuities under section 403(b) of the Code (“TSAs”). Under RAVA Advantage, the owner may allocate Purchase Payments to subaccounts or the fixed account in even 1% increments. Under RAVA Advantage Plus, if the owner has not selected the Withdrawal Benefit, the owner may allocate Purchase Payments to the subaccounts, GPAs (in approved States), the fixed account and/or the special dollar cost averaging account (when available) in even 1% increments. If the owner has selected the Withdrawal Benefit, the owner must allocate Purchase Payments in accordance with an available asset allocation program. IDS Life reserves the right to not accept Purchase Payments allocated to the fixed account for twelve months following either a partial surrender from the fixed account or a lump sum transfer from the fixed account to a subaccount.

Owners of RAVA Advantage contracts currently may allocate their Purchase Payments among 53 Investment Funds from 17 fund families. Owners of RAVA Advantage Plus contracts currently may allocate their Purchase Payments among 56 Investment Funds from 17 fund families. RAVA Advantage also offers a fixed account investment option with a guaranteed minimum interest rate of 3% on an annual basis. RAVA Advantage Plus offers a fixed account investment option with a guaranteed minimum interest rate ranging from 1.5% to 3% on an annual basis depending on the State in which the contract is issued. In addition, RAVA Advantage Plus offers GPAs (in approved States). The owner may allocate Purchase Payments and Purchase Payment Credits to one or more of the GPAs with guarantee periods that IDS Life declares. Each GPA pays an interest rate that IDS Life declares when the owner makes an allocation to the account.

RAVA Advantage Plus contains a new optional living benefit that currently is not available under RAVA Advantage. The Withdrawal Benefit is available (in approved States) if the owner is age 75 or younger at contract issue. The Withdrawal Benefit gives the owner the right to take limited partial withdrawals in each contract year that ultimately equal Purchase Payments plus Purchase Payment Credits, as adjusted for certain excess withdrawals. The Guaranteed Benefit Payment is the amount that the owner is entitled to take through partial withdrawals each contract year. An annual Elective Step up option is available that allows the owner to step up the Guaranteed Benefit Amount to 100% of the contract anniversary value, subject to certain rules. The Withdrawal Benefit requires that the owner participate in an available asset allocation program. The current cost of the Withdrawal Benefit is 0.60%. IDS Life reserves the right to increase this cost up to a maximum of 2.50% for new RAVA Advantage Plus contract owners. However, any change to the cost will only apply to an existing RAVA Advantage Plus contract owner if: (i) He or she changes asset allocation models and the current cost for new owners is higher than the cost currently paid by the existing owner; or (ii) the existing RAVA Advantage Plus contract owner chooses the annual Elective Step up and the current cost for new owners is higher than the cost currently paid by the existing owner. IDS Life also reserves the right to charge a fee that varies by the asset allocation model selected.

Under RAVA Advantage the owner may transfer contract values between the subaccounts, or from the subaccounts to the fixed account. However, certain restrictions apply with respect to the timing of transfers from the fixed account. Under RAVA Advantage Plus, if required to participate in the asset allocation program in connection with the Withdrawal Benefit, the owners may not make transfers except among the various asset allocation models then available. Otherwise, the owner may transfer contract values between the subaccounts. The owner also may transfer contract values from the subaccounts to the GPAs and the fixed account. However, certain restrictions apply with respect to the timing of transfers from the fixed account. The owner may transfer contract values from any GPA to the subaccounts, fixed account or another GPA any time after 60 days of transfer or Purchase Payment allocation into that GPA. Transfers made more than 30 days before the end of the guarantee period will receive a market value adjustment, which may result in a gain or loss of contract value.

Under RAVA Advantage, the Purchase Payment Credits are: 1% of each Purchase Payment received if the owner selected the ten-year CDSC schedule and the initial Purchase Payment is under $100,000 or if the owner selected the seven-year CDSC schedule and the initial Purchase Payment is at least $100,000; and 2% of each Purchase Payment received if the owner selected the ten-year CDSC schedule and the initial Purchase Payment is at least $100,000.

Under RAVA Advantage Plus, the Purchase Payment Credits are: 1% of each Purchase Payment received if the owner selected the ten-year CDSC schedule and the initial Purchase Payment is under $100,000 or if the owner selected the seven-year CDSC schedule and the initial Purchase Payment is at least $100,000 but less than $1,000,000; and 2% of each Purchase Payment received if the owner selected the ten-year CDSC schedule and the initial Purchase Payment is at least $100,000 but less than $1,000,000. For Band 3 Contracts, the Purchase Payment Credits are: 2% of each Purchase Payment received if the owner selected the seven-year CDSC schedule; and 3% of each Purchase Payment received if the owner selected the ten-year CDSC schedule.

Under RAVA Advantage, IDS Life currently recaptures Purchase Payment Credits if the owner returns the RAVA Advantage contract during the free look period. IDS Life also may recapture Purchase Payment Credits if they were applied within twelve months preceding: the date of death that results in a lump sum death benefit; or a request for a surrender due to the owner or annuitant's confinement to a nursing home. See, IDS Life Insurance Company, et al., Investment Company Act Release Nos. 24220 (December 23, 1999) (Notice) and 24257 (January 19, 2000) (Order).

Under RAVA Advantage Plus, IDS Life currently recaptures Purchase Payment Credits if the owner returns the RAVA Advantage Plus contract during the free look period. IDS Life also may recapture Purchase Payment Credits if they were applied within twelve months preceding: the date of death that results in a lump sum death benefit; a request for a surrender due to the owner or owner's spouse's confinement to a nursing home or hospital or the owner's terminal illness; or settlement under an annuity payout plan. See, IDS Life Insurance Company, et al., Investment Company Act Release Nos. 26338 (January 22, 2004) (Notice) and 26354 (February 20, 2004) (Order).

Under RAVA Advantage, the owner can access contract values at any time through partial or full surrender and the owner has a Free Withdrawal Amount equal to earnings or up to 10% of the prior anniversary contract value per contract year (if not already included in earnings).

Under RAVA Advantage Plus, the owner can access contract values at any time through partial or full surrender. If the owner has not selected the Withdrawal Benefit, the owner has a Total Free Amount equal to earnings or up to 10% of the prior anniversary contract value per contract year (if not already included in earnings). If the owner selected the Withdrawal Benefit, the owner may withdraw up to the Guaranteed Benefit Payment each contract year. Amounts withdrawn in excess of Guaranteed Benefit Payment may reduce future amounts available under the Withdrawal Benefit.

Under RAVA Advantage, payment to the beneficiary occurs upon the earlier of the owner or annuitant's death, and benefits are based on the age of both the owner and annuitant. Under RAVA Advantage Plus, payment to the beneficiary occurs upon the owner's death, and benefits are based on the age of the owner.

Under RAVA Advantage, if the owner and annuitant are age 80 or younger on date of death, the death benefit is the greatest of: The contract value; the contract value as of most recent sixth contract anniversary plus subsequent Purchase Payments less adjusted partial surrenders; or Purchase Payments less adjusted partial surrenders. If either the owner or annuitant is age 81 or older on the date of death, the death benefit is the greatest of: The contract value; or Purchase Payments less adjusted partial surrenders. The benefit provided under the optional Return of Purchase Payments Death Benefit (“ROPP Death Benefit”) described below is included in the RAVA Advantage standard death benefit at no extra cost.

Under RAVA Advantage Plus, if the owner is age 75 or younger at contract issue, the death benefit is the greater of: the contract value, less any Purchase Payment Credits subject to recapture and less a pro rata portion of any rider fees; or Purchase Payments less adjusted partial surrenders. If the owner is age 76 or older at contract issue, the death benefit is: The contract value, less any Purchase Payment Credits subject to recapture and less a pro rata portion of any rider fees.

Under RAVA Advantage Plus, the ROPP Death Benefit is available (in approved states) if the owner is age 76 or older at contract issue. The benefit provided by the ROPP Death Benefit is included in the standard death benefit if the owner is age 75 or younger at contract issue at no additional cost. The ROPP Death Benefit states that, upon the owner's death before annuity payouts begin and while the contract is in force, IDS Life will pay the designated beneficiary the greater of: The contract value, less Purchase Payment Credits subject to recapture and less a pro rata portion of any rider fees; or Purchase Payments minus adjusted partial surrenders. The current cost of the ROPP Death Benefit is 0.20%. IDS Life reserves the right to increase the cost after the tenth rider anniversary to a maximum of 0.30% and to discontinue offering the ROPP Death Benefit for new RAVA Advantage Plus contracts.

The optional MAV Death Benefit is available under both RAVA Advantage and RAVA Advantage Plus. Under RAVA Advantage, the MAV Death Benefit is available (in approved States) if both the owner and annuitant are age 75 or younger at contract issue. The MAV Death Benefit states that, upon the earlier of the owner or annuitant's death before annuity payouts begin and while the contract is in force, IDS Life will pay the designated beneficiary the Maximum Anniversary Value (“MAV”).

Under RAVA Advantage Plus, the MAV Death Benefit is available (in approved States) if the owner is age 75 or younger at contract issue. The MAV Death Benefit states that, upon the owner's death before annuity payouts begin and while the contract is in force, IDS Life will pay the designated beneficiary the greatest of: The contract value, less Purchase Payment Credits subject to recapture and less a pro rata portion of any rider fees; Purchase Payments minus adjusted partial surrenders; or the MAV as calculated on the most recent contract anniversary plus subsequent Purchase Payments made and minus adjustments for partial surrenders since that contract anniversary. The current cost of the MAV Death Benefit under RAVA Advantage Plus is 0.25%. IDS Life reserves the right to increase this cost after the tenth rider anniversary to a maximum of 0.35% and to discontinue offering the MAV Death Benefit for new RAVA Advantage Plus contracts. A fee discount of 0.10% applies if the owner purchases the MAV Death Benefit with either the EEB or EEP (described below).

RAVA Advantage Plus contains a new optional death benefit that currently is not available under RAVA Advantage. The 5-Year MAV Death Benefit is available (in approved states) if the owner is age 75 or younger at contract issue. The 5-Year MAV Death Benefit states that, upon the owner's death before annuity payouts begin and while the contract is in force, IDS Life will pay the designated beneficiary the greatest of: The contract value, less Purchase Payment Credits subject to recapture and less a pro rata portion of any rider fees; Purchase Payments minus adjusted partial surrenders; or the MAV as calculated on the most recent fifth contract anniversary plus subsequent Purchase Payments made and minus adjustments for partial surrenders since that contract anniversary. The current cost of the 5-Year MAV Death Benefit is 0.10%. IDS Life reserves the right to increase this cost after the tenth rider anniversary to a maximum of 0.20% and to discontinue offering the 5-Year MAV Death Benefit for new RAVA Advantage Plus contracts. A fee discount of 0.05% applies if the owner purchases the 5-Year MAV Death Benefit with either the EEB or EEP (described below).

The optional EEB is available under both RAVA Advantage and RAVA Advantage Plus. Under RAVA Advantage, the EEB is available (in approved States) if both the owner and annuitant are age 75 or younger at the rider effective date. The EEB states that, upon the earlier of the owner or annuitant's death after the first contract anniversary but before annuity payouts begin and while the contract is in force, IDS Life will pay the designated beneficiary the standard death benefit or the MAV Death Benefit, if applicable, plus: 40% of earnings at death if the owner and the annuitant were under age 70 on the rider effective date, up to a maximum of 100% of Purchase Payments not previously surrendered that are one or more years old; or 15% of earnings at death if the owner or the annuitant were age 70 to 75 on the rider effective date, up to a maximum of 37.5% of Purchase Payments not previously surrendered that are one or more years old. The cost of the EEB under RAVA Advantage is 0.30%.

Under RAVA Advantage Plus, the EEB is available (in approved States) if the owner is age 75 or younger at the rider effective date. The EEB states that, upon the owner's death after the first contract anniversary but before annuity payouts begin and while the contract is in force, IDS Life will pay the designated beneficiary the standard death benefit or the MAV Death Benefit or 5-Year MAV Death Benefit, if applicable, plus: 40% of earnings at death if the owner was under age 70 on the rider effective date, up to a maximum of 100% of Purchase Payments not previously surrendered that are one or more years old; or 15% of earnings at death if the owner was age 70 to 75 on the rider effective date, up to a maximum of 37.5% of Purchase Payments not previously surrendered that are one or more years old. The current cost of the EEB under RAVA Advantage Plus is 0.30%. IDS Life reserves the right to increase this cost after the tenth rider anniversary to a maximum of 0.40% and to discontinue offering the EEB for new RAVA Advantage Plus contracts. A fee discount of 0.10% applies if the owner purchases the MAV Death Benefit with the EEB and a fee discount of 0.05% applies if the owner purchases the 5-Year MAV Death Benefit with the EEB.

The optional EEP is available under both RAVA Advantage and RAVA Advantage Plus. Under RAVA Advantage, this benefit is available (in approved states) if both the owner and annuitant are age 75 or younger at contract issue, and the contract is purchased through an exchange. The EEP states that, upon the earlier of the owner or annuitant's death, after the first contract anniversary but before annuity payouts begin and while the contract is in force, IDS Life will pay the designated beneficiary: EEP Part I benefits, which equal the benefits payable under the EEB described above; plus EEP Part II benefits, which equal a percentage of exchanged Purchase Payments identified at issue and not previously surrendered as follows:

The cost of the EEP under RAVA Advantage is 0.40%.

Under RAVA Advantage Plus, the EEP is available (in approved States) if the owner is age 75 or younger at contract issue. The EEP states that, upon the owner's death after the first contract anniversary but before annuity payouts begin and while the contract is in force, IDS Life will pay the designated beneficiary: EEP Part I benefits, which equal the benefits payable under the EEB described above; plus EEP Part II benefits, which equal a percentage of exchanged Purchase Payments identified at issue and not previously surrendered as follows:

The current cost of the EEP under RAVA Advantage Plus is 0.40%. IDS Life reserves the right to increase this cost after the tenth rider anniversary to a maximum of 0.50% and to discontinue offering the EEP for new RAVA Advantage Plus contracts. A fee discount of 0.10% applies if the owner purchases the MAV Death Benefit with the EEP and a fee discount of 0.05% applies if the owner purchases the 5-Year MAV Death Benefit with the EEP.

There are five annuity payout options under both RAVA Advantage and RAVA Advantage Plus: (A) Life annuity—no refund; (B) life annuity with five, ten or 15 years certain; (C) life annuity—installment refund; (D) joint and last survivor life annuity—no refund; and (E) payouts for a specified period. These five annuity payouts are available on a fixed or variable basis, or a combination of both. A sixth annuity payout option, the Remaining Benefit Amount Payout Option, is available only under the Withdrawal Benefit under RAVA Advantage Plus. This sixth annuity payout is available on a fixed basis only. IDS may also agree to other payout arrangements.

Under both RAVA Advantage and RAVA Advantage Plus, if the owner has not selected the Withdrawal Benefit, the owner can elect to have the variable subaccount portion of the contract value automatically rebalanced on either a quarterly, semi-annual or annual basis, based on the allocations chosen by the contract owner. Under RAVA Advantage Plus, if the owner has selected the Withdrawal Benefit and therefore is required to participate in an asset allocation program, IDS rebalances contract values quarterly. There is no additional cost for asset rebalancing.

Both RAVA Advantage and RAVA Advantage Plus provide for dollar-cost averaging. In addition, RAVA Advantage Plus provides for a special dollar-cost averaging program (which may not be available at all times). IDS Life reserves the right to add new contract features to RAVA Advantage and/or RAVA Advantage Plus.

Under both RAVA Advantage and RAVA Advantage Plus, IDS Life assesses a CDSC against partial or full surrenders in excess of the Free Withdrawal Amount/ Total Free Amount. IDS Life applies a CDSC on each Purchase Payment. The length of time from receipt of a Purchase Payment to the time of surrender determines the percentage of CDSC. Under the seven-year CDSC period, the CDSC ranges from 7% in year 1 to 0% in year 8 and after. Under the ten-year CDSC period, the CDSC ranges from 8% in year 1 to 0% in year 11 and after. IDS Life does not assess a CDSC on contract earnings, Free Withdrawal Amounts/ Total Free Amounts, required minimum distributions (provided the amount is no greater than the required minimum distribution amount calculated under the specific contract, currently in force), amounts refunded during the free look period, death benefits, or if payments are made under any annuity payout option (unless payouts made under annuity payout option E are later surrendered). Additionally, the RAVA Advantage contract provides for a waiver of the CDSC if the owner or annuitant is confined to a nursing home, and has been for the prior 90 days, and confinement began after the contract date. RAVA Advantage Plus provides for a waiver of the CDSC if the owner or the owner's spouse is confined to a nursing home or hospital, and has been for the prior 60 days, and confinement began after the contract date. RAVA Advantage Plus also provides for a waiver of the CDSC if the owner is diagnosed in the second or later contract years as disabled with a medical condition that with reasonable medical certainty will result in death within 12 months or less from the date of a licensed physician's statement.

During the life of the RAVA Advantage contract, IDS life deducts an M&E charge at an annual rate of 0.95% of the average daily subaccount value for nonqualified annuity contracts and 0.75% of the average daily subaccount value for qualified annuity contracts. During the life of the RAVA Advantage Plus contract, IDS life deducts an M&E charge at an annual rate of 0.95% of the average daily subaccount value for nonqualified annuity contracts, 0.75% of the average daily subaccount value for qualified annuity contracts and 0.55% of the average daily subaccount value for Band 3 Contracts.

Under both RAVA Advantage and RAVA Advantage Plus, IDS Life deducts an annual charge of $30 for administrative expenses from the contract value of each contract. For RAVA Advantage Plus, IDS Life reserves the right to increase this annual contract administrative charge after the first contract anniversary to a maximum of $50. Under RAVA Advantage and RAVA Advantage Plus, IDS Life waives the contract administrative charge when the contract value, or total Purchase Payments less any Purchase Payments surrendered, is $50,000 or more on the current contract anniversary.

Under both RAVA Advantage and RAVA Advantage Plus, IDS life deducts premium taxes of up to 3.5%, if applicable. These taxes depend upon the contract owner's state of residence or the State in which the contract was sold. Currently IDS Life deducts any applicable premium tax when annuity payouts begin. However, IDS Life reserves the right to deduct this tax at other times such as when a contract is surrendered.

Under both RAVA Advantage and RAVA Advantage Plus, assets invested in the Investment Funds are charged with the annual operating expenses of those Investment Funds.

12. VRA and CRA are registered together under the 1933 Act (File No. 2-73114). IDS Life no longer offers VRA contracts. IDS Life offers CRA contracts only for limited purposes. VRA and CRA both were issued as nonqualified annuities for after-tax contributions only, or as qualified annuities under the following retirement plans: (i) IRAs; (ii) SEP plans; (iii) Section 401(k) Plans; (iv) Section 401(a) Plans; (v) TSAs, or (vi) plans under Section 457 of the Code (“Section 457 Plans”). VRA was purchased with a single Purchase Payment between $5,000 and $500,000. No additional Purchase Payments are allowed under VRA. CRA may be purchased with a minimum initial Purchase Payment of $600, or in minimum installments of $50 per month or $23.08 biweekly under a scheduled payment plan. An owner may make additional Purchase Payments to CRA, which require a $50 minimum (unless Purchase Payments are made by installments under a scheduled payment plan), subsequent to the initial Purchase Payment. Maximum limitations on Purchase Payments are imposed for the first year and subsequent years, depending on whether the annuity is nonqualified or qualified. Participants in the CRA Select University of Wisconsin TSA Plan (“CRA Select”) bought CRA with installment payments of $200 to $25,000 annually.

13. Owners of VRA and CRA contracts currently may allocate their Purchase Payments among 14 Old Accounts that invest in 14 corresponding Investment Funds (most of which currently are available under RAVA Advantage Plus). CRA also offers a fixed account investment option with a guaranteed minimum interest rate of 3.5% to 4% on an annual basis depending on when the CRA contract was issued. VRA does not have a fixed account investment option.

14. Owners of VRA and CRA contracts may transfer contract values among the Old Accounts without charge. Transfers to and from CRA's fixed account are permitted, subject to certain restrictions described in the prospectus for the CRA contracts.

15. The owner of a VRA or CRA contract can access contract values at any time before annuity payouts begin by means of partial surrenders or a full surrender. In addition, VRA permits the owner a Free Withdrawal Amount of up to 10% of the initial Purchase Payment amount each year after the first without incurring a CDSC. CRA Select permits an annual Free Withdrawal Amount of 10% of the contract value at the beginning of each contract year. There are no other Free Withdrawal Amounts under CRA.

16. The death benefit under VRA and CRA is available at no extra cost. The death benefit provision under both VRA and CRA states that, upon the earlier of the owner or annuitant's death before annuity payouts begin and while the contract is in force, IDS Life will pay the following death benefits to the designated beneficiary: (i) If death occurs before the annuitant's 75th birthday, the beneficiary receives the greater of the contract value; or Purchase Payments, minus any surrenders, or (ii) if death occurs on or after the annuitant's 75th birthday, the beneficiary receives the contract value.

17. The VRA and CRA contracts contain the same annuity payout options A through E as RAVA Advantage Plus. Annuity payouts are available on a fixed or variable basis, or a combination of both.

18. Under VRA, IDS Life assesses a CDSC against partial or full surrenders in excess of the Free Withdrawal Amount. The CDSC applies to surrenders in the first seven contract years as a percentage of the amount surrendered. The CDSC ranges from 7% in the first contract year to 0% after 7 contract years. Under CRA, IDS Life assesses a CDSC against partial or full surrenders (in excess of the Free Withdrawal Amount for CRA Select). The CDSC is a percentage of the amount surrendered. Three separate CDSC periods apply to the three different versions of CRA. For the original CRA, which is no longer sold, the CDSC applies to surrenders in the first eleven contract years and ranges from 7% in the first contract year to 0% after 11 contract years. For CRA Select, which funded the University of Wisconsin TSA Plan but is no longer sold, the CDSC applies to surrenders in the first eight contract years and ranges from 7% in the first contract year to 0% after 8 contract years. For the CRA version that currently is sold for conversions from American Express Retirement Services or other IDS Life retirement annuities under which conversion is available, the CDSC applies to surrenders in the first seven contract years and ranges from 6% in the first contract year to 0% after 7 contract years. IDS Life does not assess a CDSC on Free Withdrawal Amounts under any VRA or CRA Select contract, required minimum distributions (provided the amount is no greater than the required minimum distribution amount calculated under the specific contract, currently in force), amounts refunded during the free look period, death benefits, or if payments are made under any annuity payout option (unless payouts made under annuity payout option E are later surrendered).

19. During the life of each VRA and CRA contract, IDS Life deducts an M&E charge at an annual rate of 1% of the average daily variable account value.

20. IDS Life deducts a charge for administrative expenses annually from the contract value of each VRA and CRA contract. The annual contract administrative charge is $20 per contract year for VRA and $30 per contract year for CRA.

21. IDS Life deducts premium taxes of up to 3.5%, if applicable, and under the same terms as RAVA Advantage Plus.

22. Assets invested in the Investment Funds are charged with the annual operating expenses of those Investment Funds.

23. Flex is registered under the 1933 Act (File No. 33-4173). IDS Life no longer offers Flex contracts. Flex was issued as a nonqualified annuity for after-tax contributions only, or as a qualified annuity under the following retirement plans: (i) IRAs; (ii) SEP plans; (iii) Section 401(k) Plans; (iv) Section 401(a) Plans; (v) TSAs; or (vi) Section 457 Plans. Flex was purchased with a minimum initial Purchase Payment of $1,000 for qualified annuities or $2,000 for nonqualified annuities, or in minimum installments of $50 per month or $23.08 biweekly under a scheduled payment plan. An owner may make additional Purchase Payments, which require a $50 minimum (unless Purchase Payments are made by installments under a scheduled payment plan), subsequent to the initial Purchase Payment. Maximum limitations on Purchase Payments are imposed for the first year, depending on the age of the owner or annuitant, and for each subsequent year.

24. Owners of Flex contracts currently may allocate their Purchase Payments among the 14 Old Accounts that invest in 14 corresponding Investment Funds (most of which currently are available under RAVA Advantage Plus). Flex also offers a fixed account investment option with guaranteed minimum interest rates ranging from 3% to 4% on an annual basis, depending on when the Flex contract was issued.

25. Owners of Flex contracts may transfer contract values among the Old Accounts without charge. Transfers to and from the fixed account are permitted, subject to certain restrictions described in the prospectus for the Flex contracts.

26. The owner of a Flex contract can access contract values at any time before annuity payouts begin by means of partial surrenders or a full surrender. In addition, Flex permits the owner a Free Withdrawal Amount of contract earnings without incurring a CDSC.

27. The death benefit under Flex is available at no extra cost. The death benefit provision states that, upon the earlier of the owner or annuitant's death before annuity payouts begin and while the contract is in force, IDS Life will pay the following death benefits to the designated beneficiary: (i) If death occurs before the annuitant's 75th birthday, the beneficiary receives the greatest of the contract value; the contract value as of the most recent sixth contract anniversary, minus any surrenders since that anniversary; or Purchase Payments, minus any surrenders; or (ii) if death occurs on or after the annuitant's 75th birthday, the beneficiary receives the greater of the contract value; or the contract value as of the most recent sixth contract anniversary, minus any surrenders since that anniversary.

28. Flex contains the same annuity payout options A through E as RAVA Advantage Plus. Annuity payouts are available on a fixed or variable basis, or a combination of both.

29. Under Flex, IDS Life assesses a CDSC against partial or full surrenders in excess of the Free Withdrawal Amount. IDS Life applies a CDSC of 7% on each Purchase Payment if the contract owner requests a surrender within six years of making that Purchase Payment. The Flex contract provides for a waiver of the CDSC for amounts surrendered after the later of the annuitant's attaining age 65 or the tenth contract anniversary. Additionally, IDS Life does not assess a CDSC on contract earnings, required minimum distributions (provided the amount is no greater than the required minimum distribution amount calculated under the specific contract, currently in force), death benefits, or if payments are made under any annuity payout option (unless payouts made under annuity payout option E are later surrendered).

30. During the life of the Flex contract, IDS Life deducts an M&E charge at an annual rate of 1% of the average daily variable account value.

31. IDS Life deducts a charge of $6 for administrative expenses at the end of each contract quarter from the contract value of the Flex contract (which equals an annual charge of $24 per contract year).

32. IDS Life deducts premium taxes of up to 3.5%, if applicable, and under the same terms as RAVA Advantage Plus.

33. Assets invested in the Investment Funds are charged with the annual operating expenses of those Investment Funds.

34. EBA is registered under the 1933 Act (File No. 33-52518). IDS Life no longer offers EBA contracts. EBA was issued only as a group TSA. EBA was purchased with a minimum initial Purchase Payment of $1,000 or in minimum installments of $25 per month or $300 annually under a scheduled payment plan. An owner may make additional Purchase Payments, which require a $50 minimum (unless Purchase Payments are made by installments under a scheduled payment plan), subsequent to the initial Purchase Payment. Maximum limitations on Purchase Payments are imposed for the first year, depending on the age of the contract owner, and for each subsequent year.

35. Owners of EBA contracts currently may allocate their Purchase Payments among the 14 Old Accounts that invest in 14 corresponding Investment Funds (most of which currently are available under RAVA Advantage Plus). EBA also offers a fixed account investment option with a guaranteed minimum interest rate of 4% on an annual basis.

36. Owners of EBA contracts may transfer contract values among the Old Accounts without charge. Transfers to and from the fixed account are permitted, subject to certain restrictions described in the prospectus for the EBA contracts.

37. Subject to certain restrictions imposed by the Code, the owner of an EBA contract can access certificate values at any time before annuity payouts begin by means of partial surrenders or a full surrender.

38. The death benefit under EBA is available at no extra cost. The death benefit provision states that, upon the owner/annuitant's death before annuity payouts begin and while the contract is in force, IDS Life will pay the following death benefits to the designated beneficiary: (i) If death occurs before the annuitant's 75th birthday, the beneficiary receives the greater of the certificate value; or Purchase Payments, minus any surrenders; or (ii) if death occurs on or after the annuitant's 75th birthday, the beneficiary receives the certificate value.

39. EBA contains the same annuity payout options A through E as RAVA Advantage Plus. Annuity payouts are available on a fixed or variable basis, or a combination of both.

40. Under EBA, IDS Life assesses a CDSC against partial or full surrenders in the first eleven certificate years as a percentage of the amount surrendered. The CDSC ranges from 8% in the first certificate year to 0% after 11 certificate years. The EBA contract provides for a waiver of the CDSC for amounts surrendered due to the owner's retirement under the TSA plan on or after age 55. Additionally, IDS Life does not assess a CDSC on required minimum distributions (provided the amount is no greater than the required minimum distribution amount calculated under the specific contract, currently in force), amounts refunded during the free look period, death benefits, or if payments are made under any annuity payout option (unless payouts made under annuity payout option E are later surrendered).

41. During the life of the EBA contract, IDS Life deducts an M&E charge at an annual rate of 1% of the average daily variable account value.

42. IDS Life deducts a $30 charge for administrative expenses at the end of each certificate year from the certificate value of the EBA contract.

43. IDS Life deducts premium taxes of up to 3.5%, if applicable, and under the same terms as RAVA Advantage Plus.

44. Assets invested in the Investment Funds are charged with the annual operating expenses of those Investment Funds.

45. Applicants represent that the features and benefits of RAVA Advantage Plus will be no less favorable than those under the Old Contracts, with some exceptions for differences in the guaranteed minimum interest rate under the fixed account investment option, lower annuity settlement rates, some additional transfer restrictions and lower initial death benefits. Applicants also represent that, with some exceptions for the CDSC, the charge for administrative expenses and optional charges for optional death benefits, the fees and charges of the RAVA Advantage Plus contract will be no higher than those of the Old Contracts.

46. Applicants propose to offer eligible owners of Old Contracts the opportunity to exchange their Old Contracts for RAVA Advantage Plus by means of the Extended Exchange Offer. Partial exchanges will not be permitted.

47. To be eligible for the Extended Exchange Offer, an Old Contract owner must meet all of the following criteria: (i) Have completed ten or more contract or certificate years under the Old Contract; (ii) have not made Purchase Payments greater than $4,000 in any tax year under the Old Contract in the 36 months prior to accepting the Extended Exchange Offer (except for installment payments made under a scheduled payment plan); and (iii) have a remaining CDSC of 2% or less of the contract or certificate value of the Old Contract. IDS Life reserves the right to expand the Extended Exchange Offer to owners of contracts who have completed less than ten contract or certificate years under the Old Contract or who have made Purchase Payments greater than $4,000 in any tax year under the Old Contract in the 36 months prior to accepting the Extended Exchange Offer. IDS Life also reserves the right to require a minimum contract or certificate value (“Exchange Value”) plus any additional transfers or rollovers for qualified annuities or any additional Purchase Payments or exchanges for nonqualified annuities (individually and collectively, the “Additional Amounts”) for eligibility for the Extended Exchange Offer and to change those minimum amounts from time to time.

48. If an owner accepts the Extended Exchange Offer, IDS Life will allocate to the owner's account either a Purchase Payment Credit or an Exchange Credit. Under RAVA Advantage Plus, each time IDS Life receives a Purchase Payment from an owner, it allocates to the owner's account a Purchase Payment Credit equal to 1% of each Purchase Payment received: (i) If the owner selected the ten-year CDSC schedule and the initial Purchase Payment is under $100,000; or (ii) if the owner selected the seven-year CDSC schedule and the initial Purchase Payment is at least $100,000 but less than $1,000,000. Each time IDS Life receives a Purchase Payment from the owner, it allocates to the owner's account a Purchase Payment Credit equal to 2% of each Purchase Payment received if the owner selected the ten-year CDSC schedule and the initial Purchase Payment is at least $100,000 but less than $1,000,000. Under the Band 3 Contracts, each time IDS Life receives a Purchase Payment from the owner, it allocates to the owner's account a Purchase Payment Credit equal to 2% of each Purchase Payment received if the owner selected the seven-year CDSC schedule and 3% of each Purchase Payment received if the owner selected the ten-year CDSC schedule. To increase the likelihood of remaining eligible to receive the applicable Purchase Payment Credit based on the initial Purchase Payment amount, the Old Contract owner could transfer that contract or certificate value allocated to the Old Accounts to the Old Account investing in the AXP ® VP Cash Management Fund while the exchange is pending to help reduce the risk of market volatility.

49. Under the terms of the RAVA Advantage Plus contract, if the initial Purchase Payment is less than $100,000, IDS Life will not allocate a 1% Purchase Payment Credit based on the initial Purchase Payment amount. However, in those cases where the initial Purchase Payment is less than $100,000, IDS Life will provide, from its general account assets, a 1% Exchange Credit based on the Exchange Value of the Old Contract applied to RAVA Advantage Plus on the day the exchange is effected (“Exchange Date”). This 1% Exchange Credit will not apply to subsequent Purchase Payments to RAVA Advantage Plus. However, even when the initial Purchase Payment is less than $100,000, IDS Life will allocate a Purchase Payment Credit of 1% of the initial Purchase Payment and 1% of each subsequent Purchase Payment received if the owner selects the ten-year CDSC period.

50. Upon the owner's acceptance of the Extended Exchange Offer, IDS Life will issue a RAVA Advantage Plus contract with all applicable Credits. No CDSC will be deducted upon the surrender of an Old Contract in connection with the exchange. The Exchange Value of each Old Contract, together with any applicable Additional Amounts and Credits, will be applied to the new RAVA Advantage Plus contract as of the Exchange Date. The Exchange Date will be the contract date of the new RAVA Advantage Plus contract for purposes of determining contract years and anniversaries after the Exchange Date.

51. If the owner of the new RAVA Advantage Plus contract exercises the free look option, IDS Life will recapture any Credits. IDS Life will reverse either the RAVA Advantage Plus contract value (less any Credits and reflecting any applicable market value adjustment) or the Purchase Payment made to the RAVA Advantage Plus contract, depending on applicable law. IDS Life will apply this amount to restore the Old Contract to the extent possible. IDS Life will allocate this amount to the selected Old Contract investments in the proportions that existed just prior to the exchange. Any adjustments made due to investment experience and/or market value adjustment will be allocated or deducted according to the selected investment percentage allocations under the Old Contract just prior to the exchange. Withdrawals made after the free look period under RAVA Advantage Plus has expired will be governed by the terms of the RAVA Advantage Plus contract, including the application of the CDSC. To the extent a death benefit or surrender payment includes any Credit amounts applied within twelve months preceding: (i) The date of death that results in a lump sum death benefit under RAVA Advantage Plus; (ii) a request for a CDSC waiver due to the owner or owner's spouse's confinement to a nursing home or hospital or the owner's terminal illness; or (iii) the owner's settlement under an annuity payout plan, IDS Life will recapture the Credits.

52. IDS Life will notify all owners of the Old Contracts of the Extended Exchange Offer through normal client communications such as updated prospectuses or prospectus supplements (“Program Announcement”). This Program Announcement will: (i) Describe the terms and conditions of the Extended Exchange Offer; (ii) suggest to owners who may qualify that they contact their registered representatives to learn more about the Extended Exchange Offer and to discuss their individual situations (including tax, financial planning and contract considerations); and (iii) notify owners that IDS Life reserves the right to cancel the Extended Exchange Offer at any time. In addition, IDS Life may send the information in the Program Announcement to some or all Old Contract owners via additional communications that also may include that owner's specific contract information (such as Exchange Value and applicable CDSC).

53. IDS Life, either directly or through its registered representatives, will provide eligible Old Contract owners who are interested in learning more about the Extended Exchange Offer with an Offering Communication that includes information outlined in the Program Announcement and additional information describing the Extended Exchange Offer. The Offering Communication will state, in clear and plain English, that the Extended Exchange Offer is not designed for a contract owner who: (i) Intends to hold the RAVA Advantage Plus contract as a short-term investment vehicle; or (ii) anticipates surrendering all or part ( i.e. more than the Total Free Amount on an annual basis) of his or her RAVA Advantage Plus contract before five to seven years (if the Old Contract owner would select the seven-year CDSC period under RAVA Advantage Plus) or eight to ten years (if the Old Contract owner would select the ten-year CDSC period under RAVA Advantage Plus). IDS Life will encourage Old Contract owners to carefully evaluate their personal financial planning situation when deciding whether to accept or reject the Extended Exchange Offer.

54. In addition, the Offering Communication will explain how the owner of an Old Contract contemplating an exchange may avoid the applicable CDSC on the RAVA Advantage Plus contract by not surrendering more than the annual Total Free Amount and by holding any subsequent Purchase Payments until expiration of the CDSC period. In this regard, IDS Life will state, in clear and plain English, that if the owner surrenders the RAVA Advantage Plus contract during the initial CDSC period: (i) The lower M&E charges and any applicable Credits may be more than offset by the CDSC; and (ii) an Old Contract owner may be worse off than if he or she had rejected the Extended Exchange Offer.

55. Furthermore, IDS Life will state, in clear and plain English, that guaranteed annuity settlement rates generally are lower under RAVA Advantage Plus. Therefore, if the Old Contract owner contemplates annuitizing the RAVA Advantage Plus contract during the first few years, the lower settlement factors may more than offset the lower M&E charges and any applicable Credits.

56. IDS Life will explain that if an owner accepts the Extended Exchange Offer, IDS Life will allocate to the owner's account either a Purchase Payment Credit or an Exchange Credit. If the initial Purchase Payment is at least $100,000, IDS Life will allocate to the owner's account a Purchase Payment Credit on the initial Purchase Payment and on each subsequent Purchase Payment received. To increase the likelihood of remaining eligible to receive the applicable Purchase Payment Credit based on the initial Purchase Payment amount, the Old Contract owner could transfer that contract or certificate value allocated to the Old Accounts to the Old Account investing in the AXP® VP Cash Management Fund while the exchange is pending to help reduce the risk of market volatility. If the initial Purchase Payment to RAVA Advantage Plus is less than $100,000, IDS Life will provide a 1% Exchange Credit based on the Exchange Value of the Old Contract applied to RAVA Advantage Plus on the Exchange Date. The 1% Exchange Credit will not apply to subsequent Purchase Payments. However, even when the initial Purchase Payment is less than $100,000, IDS Life will allocate a Purchase Payment Credit of 1% of the initial Purchase Payment and 1% of each subsequent Purchase Payment received if the owner selects the ten-year CDSC period.

57. In addition, IDS Life will prominently disclose that the guaranteed minimum interest rate on RAVA Advantage Plus' fixed account investment option may be less than the guaranteed minimum interest rate on the Old Contract's fixed account investment option. IDS Life also will disclose that the current death benefit on the Old Contract may be greater than the initial death benefit on RAVA Advantage Plus. When applicable, IDS Life also will explain that an owner of an Old Contract may lose some tax benefits. The Offering Communication will state that certain Investment Funds available under the Old Contracts are not available under RAVA Advantage Plus and that transfers to and from the fixed account are more restricted under RAVA Advantage Plus than under the Old Contract. Finally, the Offering Communication will state that IDS Life may terminate the Extended Exchange Offer at any time. The Offering Communication also will include a prospectus for the new RAVA Advantage Plus contract.

58. To accept the Extended Exchange Offer, the owner of an Old Contract must complete an internal exchange form and application for the RAVA Advantage Plus contract. Applicants state that those Old Contract owners who accept the Extended Exchange Offer will incur no current taxes and that the exchanges will constitute tax-free transfers, rollovers or exchanges pursuant to Section 1035 of the Code.

59. Applicants submit that the Extended Exchange Offer is meant to encourage existing Old Contract owners to remain with IDS Life rather than surrender their contracts in exchange for a competitor's product. If the CDSC under RAVA Advantage Plus did not apply to the Exchange Value, Applicants assert that IDS Life would have no assurance that an Old Contract owner who accepted the Extended Exchange Offer would persist long enough for any applicable Credits, payments to registered representatives and other relevant expenses to be recouped through standard fees from the ongoing operation of the RAVA Advantage Plus contract.

60. Applicants state that the commissions that IDS Life will pay its registered representatives for soliciting exchanges under the Extended Exchange Offer are less than the normal commissions paid for soliciting sales of RAVA Advantage Plus contracts. Applicants assert that compensating IDS Life's registered representatives for these exchanges is necessary in order to provide sufficient incentive for them to compete with competitors' registered representatives.

61. IDS Life reserves the right to terminate the Extended Exchange Offer at any time. If IDS Life terminates the Extended Exchange Offer, it will send a notice to currently eligible Old Contract owners (“Termination Notice”). The Termination Notice will state that Old Contract owners who wish to participate in the Extended Exchange Offer must do so within two months from the date of the Termination Notice. The Termination Notice will contain all of the caveats described herein.

Applicants agree to the following conditions:

1. The Offering Communication and Termination Notice will contain concise, plain English statements that: (i) The Extended Exchange Offer is suitable only for an Old Contract owner who expects to hold RAVA Advantage Plus as a long-term investment; (ii) if the RAVA Advantage Plus contract is partially or completely surrendered during the initial CDSC period or annuitized during the first few years, the lower M&E charges and any applicable Credits may be more than offset by the CDSC or lower annuity settlement rates and an Old Contract owner may be worse off than if he or she had rejected the Extended Exchange Offer; (iii) IDS Life will allocate an Exchange Credit equal to 1% of the Exchange Value of the Old Contract when the initial Purchase Payment to the RAVA Advantage Plus contract is less than $100,000 (this Exchange Credit will not apply to subsequent Purchase Payments received); (iv) the guaranteed interest rate on RAVA Advantage Plus' fixed account option may be less than the guaranteed interest rate on the Old Contract's fixed account option; (v) the current death benefit on the Old Contract may be greater than the initial death benefit on RAVA Advantage Plus; (vi) certain Investment Funds available under the Old Contract are not available under RAVA Advantage Plus; (vii) transfers to and from the fixed account are more restricted under RAVA Advantage Plus than under the Old Contract; (viii) an Old Contract owner may lose some tax benefits (when applicable); and (ix) IDS Life reserves the right to terminate the Extended Exchange Offer.

2. The Offering Communication will disclose in concise, plain English each aspect of the RAVA Advantage Plus contract that could be less favorable than the Old Contracts.

3. IDS Life, either directly or through its registered representatives, will send an Offering Communication to eligible Old Contract owners who are interested in learning more about the Extended Exchange Offer. An Old Contract owner choosing to exchange will then complete and sign an internal exchange form and RAVA Advantage Plus application and return it to IDS Life. This internal exchange form will prominently restate in concise, plain English the caveats described above in Condition (1). If the internal exchange form is more than two pages long, IDS Life will use a separate document to obtain contract owner acknowledgment of the caveats described in Condition (1).

4. IDS Life will maintain the following separately identifiable records in an easily accessible place for the time periods specified below in this Condition (4) for review by the Commission upon request: (i) Records showing the level of exchange activity and how it relates to the total number of Old Contract owners eligible to exchange (quarterly as a percentage of the number eligible); (ii) copies of any form of Program Announcements, Offering Communications, Termination Notices and other written materials or scripts for presentations by registered representatives regarding the Extended Exchange Offer that IDS Life either prepares or approves, including the dates that such materials were used; (iii) records containing information about each exchange transaction that occurs, including the name of the contract owner, Old Contract and RAVA Advantage Plus contract numbers; the amount of CDSC waived on surrender of the Old Contract; Purchase Payment Credits and Exchange Credits paid; the name and CRD number of the registered representative soliciting the exchange, firm affiliation, branch office address, telephone number and the name of the registered representative's broker-dealer; commission paid; the internal exchange form (and separate document, if any, used to obtain the Old Contract owner's acknowledgment of the caveats required in Condition (1)) showing the name, date of birth, address and telephone number of the contract owner and the date the internal exchange form (or separate document) was signed; amount of contract or certificate value exchanged; and persistency information relating to the RAVA Advantage Plus contract, including the date of any subsequent surrender and the amount of CDSC paid on the surrender; and (iv) logs showing a record of any contract owner complaint about the exchange, state insurance department inquiries about the exchange, or litigation, arbitration, or other proceeding regarding any exchange. The logs will include the date of the complaint or commencement of the proceeding, name and address of the person making the complaint or commencing the proceeding, nature of the complaint or proceeding, and the persons named or involved in the complaint or proceeding. Applicants will retain records specified in (i) and (iv) for a period of six years after the date the records are created, records specified in (ii) for a period of six years after the date of last use, and records specified in (iii) for a period of two years after the date that the initial CDSC period of the RAVA Advantage Plus contract ends.

1. Section 11(a) of the Act makes it unlawful for any registered open-end company, or any principal underwriter for such a company, to make or cause to be made an offer to the holder of a security of such company, or of any other open-end investment company, to exchange his or her security for a security in the same or another such company on any basis other than the relative net asset values of the respective securities, unless the terms of the offer have first been submitted to and approved by the Commission or are in accordance with Commission rules adopted under section 11.

2. Section 11(c) of the Act, in pertinent part, requires, in effect, that any offer of exchange of the securities of a registered unit investment trust for the securities of any other investment company be approved by the Commission or satisfy applicable rules adopted under Section 11, regardless of the basis of the exchange.

3. The purpose of section 11 of the Act is to prevent “switching,” the practice of inducing security holders of one investment company to exchange their securities for those of a different investment company solely for the purpose of exacting additional selling charges. That type of practice was found by Congress to be widespread in the 1930s prior to the adoption of the Act.

4. Section 11(c) of the Act requires Commission approval (by order or by rule) of any exchange, regardless of its basis, involving securities issued by a unit investment trust, because investors in unit investment trusts were found by Congress to be particularly vulnerable to switching operations.

5. Applicants assert that the potential for harm to investors perceived in switching was its use to extract additional sales charges from those investors. Applicants further assert that the terms of the proposed Extended Exchange Offer do not present the abuses against which section 11 was intended to protect. The Extended Exchange Offer is designed to allow IDS Life to compete on a level playing field with its competitors who are making bonus offers to its current Old Contract owners. No additional sales load or other fee will be imposed at the time of exercise of the Extended Exchange Offer.

6. Rule 11a-2, by its express terms, provides Commission approval of certain types of offers of exchange of one variable annuity contract for another. Applicants assert that other than the relative net asset value requirement (which is not satisfied because exchanging Old Contract owners will be given Purchase Payment Credits and/or Exchange Credits), the only part of Rule 11a-2 that would not be satisfied by the proposed Extended Exchange Offer is the requirement that payments under the Old Contract be treated as if they had been made under the new RAVA Advantage Plus contract on the dates actually made. This provision of Rule 11a-2 is often referred to as a “tacking” requirement because it has the effect of “tacking together” the CDSC expiration periods of the exchanged and acquired contracts.

7. Applicants assert that the absence of tacking does not mean that an exchange offer cannot be attractive and beneficial to investors. Applicants state that the proposed Extended Exchange Offer would assure an immediate and enduring economic benefit to investors for the following reasons: (i) RAVA Advantage Plus has a lower M&E charge than the Old Contracts. During the life of the Old Contracts, IDS Life deducts an M&E charge at an annual rate of 1% of the average daily variable account value. During the life of a RAVA Advantage Plus contract, IDS Life deducts an M&E charge at an annual rate of 0.95% of the average daily subaccount value for nonqualified annuities, 0.75% of the average daily subaccount value for qualified annuities and 0.55% of the average daily subaccount value for Band 3 Contracts; (ii) RAVA Advantage Plus contract owners receive applicable Purchase Payment Credits and/or Exchange Credits. Each time IDS Life receives a Purchase Payment from an owner, it allocates to the owner's RAVA Advantage Plus account a Purchase Payment Credit equal to: (a) 1% of each Purchase Payment received if the owner selected the ten-year CDSC period, or if the owner selected the seven-year CDSC period and the initial Purchase Payment is at least $100,000 but less than $1,000,000; (b) 2% of each Purchase Payment received if the owner selected the ten-year CDSC period and the initial Purchase Payment is at least $100,000 but less than $1,000,000; or (c) for Band 3 Contracts, 2% of each Purchase Payment received if the owner selected the seven-year CDSC period and 3% of each Purchase Payment received if the owner selected the ten-year CDSC period. If the initial Purchase Payment to RAVA Advantage Plus is less than $100,000, IDS Life will provide a 1% Exchange Credit based on the Exchange Value of the Old Contract applied to RAVA Advantage Plus on the Exchange Date (but the 1% Exchange Credit will not apply to subsequent Purchase Payments); (iii) RAVA Advantage Plus has more Investment Funds. RAVA Advantage Plus offers 56 Investment Funds in contrast to the 14 Investment Funds under the Old Contracts. One small cap Investment Fund available under the Old Contracts currently is not available under RAVA Advantage Plus. However, RAVA Advantage Plus currently includes six small cap Investment Funds to which a contract owner can allocate Purchase Payments. Therefore, RAVA Advantage Plus contract owners can allocate Purchase Payments not only to most of the Investment Funds under the Old Contracts, but also to many additional Investment Funds. This gives RAVA Advantage Plus contract owners the opportunity for greater diversification and asset allocation; (iv) RAVA Advantage Plus offers an optional living benefit. RAVA Advantage Plus contract owners may select the Withdrawal Benefit for an additional cost. The Withdrawal Benefit gives the owner the right to take limited partial withdrawals in each contract year that ultimately equal Purchase Payments plus Credits, as adjusted for certain excess withdrawals; and (v) RAVA Advantage Plus has optional enhanced death benefits. RAVA Advantage Plus contract owners may elect optional death benefits for an additional cost that provide substantive value to beneficiaries. A contract owner who expects to hold RAVA Advantage Plus as a long-term investment will receive the economic benefits of the Extended Exchange Offer. No sales charge will ever be paid on the amounts exchanged unless the RAVA Advantage Plus contract is surrendered before expiration of the CDSC period the owner has selected.

8. Applicants assert that tacking should be viewed as a useful way to avoid the need to scrutinize the terms of an offer of exchange to make sure that there is no abuse. Tacking is not a requirement of section 11. Rather, it is a creation of a rule designed to approve the terms of offers of exchange “sight unseen.” Tacking focuses on the closest thing to multiple deduction of sales loads that is possible in a CDSC context—multiple exposure to sales loads upon surrender or redemption. If tacking and other safeguards of Rule 11a-2 are present, there is no need for the Commission or its staff to evaluate the terms of the offer. The absence of tacking in this fully scrutinized section 11 application will have no impact on offers made pursuant to the rule on a “sight unseen” basis.

9. Applicants assert that the terms of IDS Life's Extended Exchange Offer are better than those of its competitors. Unlike the Extended Exchange Offer proposed by IDS Life, when Old Contract owners exchange into competitors' contracts, they must pay any remaining CDSC on the Old Contracts at the time of the exchange. No tacking is required when IDS Life's competitors offer their variable annuity contracts to owners of Old Contracts or when IDS Life makes such an offer to competitors' contract owners. The Commission has previously approved similar exchange offers to permit the owners of older contracts to exchange them for contracts offering an immediate and enduring economic benefit even where tacking did not occur.

10. To the extent there are differences between the Old Contracts and the RAVA Advantage Plus contract, those differences relate to enhanced contractual features and charges that are fully described in the prospectus for the RAVA Advantage Plus contract. Furthermore, the Offering Communication (and any Termination Notice) will contain concise, plain English disclosure of each aspect of the RAVA Advantage Plus contract that could be less favorable than the Old Contracts.

Applicants submit, for the reasons stated herein, that the Extended Exchange Offer is consistent with the protections provided by section 11 of the Act, and that approving the terms of the Extended Exchange Offer is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policies and provisions of the Act. Applicants submit that the requested Amended Order approving the terms of the proposed Extended Exchange Offer therefore should be granted.