Agricultural Research Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Rural Utilities Service
Engineers Corps
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Western Area Power Administration
Management and Budget Office
Presidential Documents
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Management and Budget Office
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Direct final rule; withdrawal.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published in the
The direct final rule published at 69 FR 53615 (September 2, 2004), is withdrawn as of January 13, 2005.
Betty B. Dorsey, Division of Freedom of Information (HFI-35), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-6567.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the direct final rule published on September 2, 2004 (69 FR 53615), is withdrawn.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Treasury decision; final rule.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) makes two amendments to its regulations in response to two petitions submitted by producers of raisin and honey wines. One amendment allows the production of dried fruit wines with an alcohol by volume content of more than 14 percent. The other amendment lowers the minimum starting Brix of 22 degrees to 13 degrees in the production of honey wines. In addition, TTB corrects a technical error in the wine labeling regulations by raising the maximum limit on alcohol content derived from fermentation from 13 to 14 percent for ameliorated agricultural wines.
March 21, 2005.
Jennifer Berry of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Regulations and Procedures Division, at P.O. Box 18152, Roanoke, VA 24014; or telephone (540) 344-9333.
Section 5387 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC), 26 U.S.C. 5387, provides that wines made from agricultural products other than the juice of fruit must be made “in accordance with good commercial practice” as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury by regulation. Under this statutory provision, wines made according to those regulations are classed as “ ‘standard agricultural wines.’ ” However, § 5387 precludes the following production processes:
• The addition of wine spirits to agricultural wines;
• The addition of coloring or flavoring materials to agricultural wines, with the exception of the addition of hops to honey wine; or
• The blending of wines from different agricultural commodities.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) is responsible for the administration of the IRC provisions that relate to alcohol beverages, including wine. Part 24 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 24) addresses the IRC provisions pertaining to wine and contains, in subpart I, Production of Agricultural Wine, regulations that implement the provisions of IRC § 5387.
Subpart I concerns the production of agricultural wines. Sections 24.202 and 24.203 specifically address dried fruit wine and honey wine, respectively, and § 24.204 addresses requirements for all agricultural wines other than dried fruit and honey wines. These sections prohibit the production of any agricultural wine with an alcohol content of more than 14 percent by volume following complete fermentation or complete fermentation and sweetening. The IRC does not specify this limitation, which has been in the regulations since 1954. Rather, the limitation derives from the law's “good commercial practice” standard.
Sections 24.202, 24.203, and 24.204 also contain limits on degrees Brix prior to fermentation for agricultural wines. Brix is the quantity of dissolved solids in a wine expressed as grams of sucrose in 100 grams of solution at 60 degrees Fahrenheit, that is, the percent of sugar by weight stated in degrees. The regulations permit the addition of water during the production of agricultural wines, to facilitate fermentation, as long as the density of the fermenting mixture is not reduced below 22 degrees Brix. The 22 degree limit, like that on alcohol content discussed above, was placed in the wine regulations in 1954 and is based on “good commercial practice” standards and not on specific statutory language.
Bruno and George Wines, Inc., of Beaumont, Texas, petitioned TTB to amend § 24.202 to allow for the production of a standard dried fruit wine that contains more than 14 percent alcohol by volume. Because of the current prohibition in § 24.202 against
Shawn Bruno, president of Bruno and George Wines, Inc., wishes to produce and market a raisin wine made according to his grandfather's traditional Sicilian recipe. The resulting wine would have an alcohol content greater than 14 percent alcohol by volume, and Mr. Bruno argues that his wine can be classified as a dessert wine. Upon lifting this prohibition, Mr. Bruno's wine can be classified as a dessert raisin wine because § 4.21(f)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.21(f)(3)) allows designation of agricultural wines as agricultural dessert wines if they have an alcohol content greater than 14 percent but less than 24 percent by volume. This provision currently only applies to imported products by default because domestic producers are limited to the 14 percent maximum alcohol content.
Redstone Meadery of Boulder, Colorado, petitioned TTB to amend § 24.203 to allow for the production of a standard honey wine with a minimum starting Brix of less than 22 degrees. As indicated above, § 24.203 permits the addition of water in the production of honey wine to facilitate fermentation, as long as the density of the honey and water mixture is not reduced below 22 degrees Brix. We currently classify honey wines with a lower starting Brix as OTSW.
David Myers of Redstone Meadery states that he wants to make a lower alcohol honey wine that requires a starting Brix below 22 degrees. Mr. Myers argues that, because such a wine would still have honey as its primary fermentable ingredient, we should classify it as honey wine. He suggests that we create a new category for low-alcohol honey wines if the minimum starting Brix cannot be lowered. He proposes the names “light honey wine” or “honey wine varietal” for this new category, which would encompass honey wines with a starting Brix of between 22 degrees and 13 degrees, or roughly 7 percent alcohol by volume in the finished product.
Both the language of IRC § 5387 and its implementing regulations in 27 CFR 24.202, 24.203, and 24.204 date from the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The legislative history relating to § 5387 includes the following passage:
These wines are not specifically referred to in existing law. This addition to the law enables the setting up by regulations of standards of agricultural wines after experience has shown to what extent provisions of law relating to natural wines should be considered applicable. Uniform limitations cannot be prescribed for all agricultural wines. Limitations consistent with good commercial practices in respect to the production of rice wines could not be prescribed for other wines, such as honey wine, rhubarb wine, etc. (H.R. Rep. 1337, 83rd Cong., 2nd Sess. (1954), reprinted 1954 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 3, 4518.)
This explanation shows that the law recognizes that agricultural wines are unique, with production standards that may vary significantly from one type of wine to another. While standards for natural wine (wines made from sound, ripe grapes or other sound, ripe fruit) may influence agricultural wine standards, the two can vary significantly.
In 1954, the Internal Revenue Service established regulations based on standards of good commercial practice at that time. Because such standards change over time as a result of technical developments and consumer preferences, it is prudent to reassess these regulations in light of current industry practice and consumer understanding of these products.
TTB research initiated as a result of these proposals failed to locate the rationale for the maximum alcohol content limit of 14 percent for agricultural wines. The initial implementing regulations in 1954 do not explain why the limitation of 14 percent alcohol content was determined to be a good commercial practice for agricultural wines. (
Also, as noted by one of the petitioners, § 4.21(f)(3) permits a dessert wine classification for agricultural wines that are 14 to 24 percent alcohol by volume. Currently, producers of imported agricultural wines can legally call their products “dessert agricultural wine,” and some dessert raisin wines, in fact, are imported into the United States. On the other hand, because domestic raisin wine producers must comply with the production provisions in part 24, they cannot take advantage of § 4.21(f)(3) and label their wines as dessert wines. We expect that changing § 24.202 will put domestic dried fruit wines on an equal footing with imported products. In addition, customer preference drives the importation of these dried fruit dessert wines, which is evidence that the higher alcohol content represents a good commercial practice.
We also were unable to document a reason for the 22 degrees Brix limitation, but we believe it derives from the limitations placed on grape and fruit natural wines. IRC § 5382(b)(1) (26 U.S.C. 5382(b)(1)) states, in this regard, that the juice or must of grape and fruit wines may not be reduced with water to less than 22 degrees. It may be inappropriate to apply this same standard to all agricultural wines, since source products such as honey, raisins, and dandelions often contain far less natural water than do grapes and other fruits. In these cases, vintners must add water in order to achieve fermentation.
Our research into the production of honey wines identified references to a category of low-alcohol honey wine called “hydromel.” The fact that a recognized category already exists for a lower alcohol honey wine indicates that such a wine is consistent with good commercial practice.
TTB published Notice No. 13 regarding these two petition proposals in the July 2, 2003,
Based on the above analysis, we amend § 24.202 to remove the 14 percent alcohol by volume limitation on wine produced from dried fruit. In addition, based on the above analysis and the submitted comments, we amend § 24.203 to lower the minimum Brix from 22 degrees to 13 degrees for honey wine. We also amend the latter section to make it clear that vintners may add sugar to sweeten honey wine only after fermentation. This restriction ensures that the alcohol in honey wine derives from honey and not from added sugar.
During the comment period, we also received an informal verbal comment from a wine industry member who felt that the proposed regulatory language for § 24.203 was confusing. We agree and have changed the structure of this paragraph. We have not, however, altered the meaning.
We do not adopt the suggestion of Mr. Myers to create a separate category for low-alcohol honey wines. No separate category exists for low-alcohol grape or fruit wines. Therefore, we see no need to have one for agricultural wines.
Also, the terms proposed by Mr. Myers, “light honey wine” and “honey wine varietal,” have other connotations that could cause consumer confusion when they are used in labeling wines. Section 4.21(a)(2) of the TTB regulations currently allows use of the term “light” on labels of grape wines that are less than 14 percent alcohol by volume. This authorization encompasses wines that are not usually considered low-alcohol. Creating a different meaning for “light” honey wines could confuse consumers.
In addition, we feel that the consumer associates the word “varietal” with grape varieties, not with agricultural products. In Notice No. 13, we stated that we would reconsider the creation of a separate category if we received sufficient comments that favor such a change over the lowering of the minimum Brix. We received no comments addressing this issue.
While reviewing the regulations relating to agricultural wines, we noted a technical error in § 4.21(f)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations, which states that ameliorated agricultural wines may not have an alcohol content of more than 13 percent by volume that is derived from fermentation. This 13 percent limit is inconsistent with the IRC's treatment of other types of ameliorated wines. While the IRC does not contain a limit on alcohol content for ameliorated agricultural wines, it gives a 14 percent limit for ameliorated fruit and berry wines. Until corrected by T.D. ATF-458, §§ 4.21(d)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(i), the standards of identity for citrus and fruit wines respectively, also contained an incorrect limit of 13 percent. In order to establish consistency for all classes of wine, we amend § 4.21(f)(1)(i) to raise the alcohol content limit on ameliorated agricultural wines to 14 percent. Note that § 4.21(f)(1)(i) addresses only ameliorated agricultural wines and does not prohibit the production of nonameliorated agricultural wines that are greater than 14 percent alcohol by volume.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a significant regulatory action, as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it requires no regulatory analysis.
The principal author of this document is Jennifer Berry, Regulations and Procedures Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.
Advertising, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade practices, Wine.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Electronic funds transfers, Excise taxes, Exports, Food additives, Fruit juices, Labeling, Liquors, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Scientific equipment, Spices and flavorings, Surety bonds, Vinegar, Warehouses, Wine.
27 U.S.C. 205, unless otherwise noted.
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 26 U.S.C. 5001, 5008, 5041, 5042, 5044, 5061, 5062, 5081, 5111'5113, 5121, 5122, 5142, 5143, 5173, 5206, 5214, 5215, 5351, 5353, 5354, 5356, 5357, 5361, 5362, 5364'5373, 5381'5388, 5391, 5392, 5511, 5551, 5552, 5661, 5662, 5684, 6065, 6091, 6109, 6301, 6302, 6311, 6651, 6676, 7011, 7302, 7342, 7502, 7503, 7606, 7805, 7851; 31 U.S.C. 9301, 9303, 9304, 9306.
* * * After complete fermentation or complete fermentation and sweetening, the finished product may not have a total solids content that exceeds 35 degrees Brix. (26 U.S.C. 5387)
(a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, a winemaker, in the production of wine from honey, may add the following:
(1) Water to facilitate fermentation, provided the density of the honey and water mixture is not reduced below 13 degrees Brix;
(2) Hops in quantities not to exceed one pound for each 1,000 pounds of honey; and
(3) Pure, dry sugar or honey for sweetening. Sugar may be added only after fermentation is completed.
(b) After complete fermentation or complete fermentation and sweetening, the wine may not have an alcohol content of more than 14 percent by volume or a total solids content that exceeds 35 degrees Brix. (26 U.S.C. 5387)
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), Treasury.
Final rule; Treasury decision.
This Treasury decision establishes the McMinnville viticultural area in Yamhill County, Oregon. The new McMinnville viticultural area is entirely within the existing Willamette Valley viticultural area. We designate viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase.
March 21, 2005.
Jennifer Berry, Regulations and Procedures Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 18152, Roanoke, VA 24014; telephone (540) 344-9333.
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (the FAA Act, 27 U.S.C. 201
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the list of approved viticultural areas.
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographic origin. The establishment of viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires the petition to include—
• Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition;
• Historical or current evidence that supports setting the boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies;
• Evidence relating to the geographical features, such as climate, soils, elevation, and physical features, that distinguish the proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas;
• A description of the specific boundary of the proposed viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps; and
• A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed viticultural area's boundary prominently marked.
In 2002, Mr. Kevin Byrd, of Youngberg Hill Vineyards in McMinnville, Oregon, filed a petition requesting the establishment of a viticultural area to be called “McMinnville” in Yamhill County, Oregon. The proposed viticultural area is located approximately 40 miles southwest of Portland, Oregon, just west of the city of McMinnville and north of the village of Sheridan. The McMinnville area is entirely within the existing Willamette Valley viticultural area (27 CFR 9.90). According to the petitioner, there were 14 wineries and 523 acres planted to vines within the proposed McMinnville viticultural area.
TTB published Notice No. 12 regarding the proposed McMinnville viticultural area in the June 27, 2003,
Below, we summarize the evidence presented in the petition.
The viticultural area is named for the city of McMinnville, the county seat of Yamhill County, which is located at the northeastern border of the viticultural area. Mr. Byrd stated that the area is considered part of greater McMinnville and noted that most of the wineries within the proposed boundaries have McMinnville addresses. He provided historical information on the name “McMinnville” from “Oregon Geographic Names” by Lewis L. McArthur (Oregon Historical Society, 1982). Mr. McArthur stated:
McMinnville was named by William T. Newby, who was born in McMinnville, Warren County, Tennessee, in 1820, and came to Oregon in 1843. He settled near the present site of McMinnville early in 1844, and in 1853 built a grist mill and founded the town. In 1854 he started a store. He was county assessor in 1848 and state senator in 1870. McMinville post office was established on May 29, 1855, with Elbrige G. Edson postmaster. The name was later changed to the present spelling.
According to the petitioner, consumers know McMinnville as a wine-producing region. To demonstrate this, he submitted several quotes from Internet sites. The first quote is from the Web site of the Greater McMinnville Chamber of Commerce; the other two are from travel sites:
• “Nestled in the heart of Oregon's beautiful wine country, McMinnville is Oregon at its best.” (See
• “Before gaining its glamorous reputation as a wine-producing center, McMinnville was known as the home of Linfield College * * *.” (See
• “McMinnville is known for its picturesque vineyards that dot the foothills. Located in Yamhill County, the oldest county in Oregon, McMinnville is often compared to the wine regions of France and Germany.” (See
In addition, the petitioner noted that McMinnville is the home of the International Pinot Noir Celebration, held every July since 1987 at the Linfield College campus.
The McMinnville viticultural area's boundaries encompass Gopher Valley,
The petitioner stated that below the 200-foot elevation line the Willamette silt-based soils create growing conditions substantially different from those in the proposed viticultural area. The greater depth, water-holding capacity, and fertility of soils at these lower elevations extends the vegetative period of the vine and delays ripening of vineyards planted at those elevations. The soils of the proposed viticultural area are described in greater detail in the following section.
In addition, the petitioner noted that elevations below 200 feet are more prone to frost when compared to the higher elevations.
Initially, the petitioner proposed to exclude from the McMinnville viticultural area any land above 800 feet in elevation falling within the proposed boundaries, due to climatic differences with land below that elevation. In particular, the petitioner stated that land above 800 feet within the proposed McMinnville viticultural area experiences fewer degree growing days than lower elevations do, thus preventing the reliable ripening of wine grapes. Because of the unusual nature of the boundary proposal, TTB specifically asked in Notice No. 12 for comments regarding the proposed McMinnville viticultural area boundaries.
Mystic Mountain Vineyards submitted two comments disagreeing with the proposed elevation limitation—one signed by Linda Lindsay, the other by Arthur Lindsay. Mr. Lindsay noted that he and his wife own a vineyard within the proposed McMinnville viticultural area's boundary, but at an elevation of 1,200 feet. He stated that their records, dating back to 1999, show that their vineyard's degree growing days are sufficient to ripen their yearly crop. While Mr. Lindsay acknowledged that their vineyard's daily high temperatures are lower than those of vineyards at lower elevations, he argued that their nighttime temperatures are generally higher than those at lower elevations during the growing season. He pointed out that since degree growing days are calculated on a 24-hour basis, the degree growing days for their vineyard's elevation are as high as those found at lower elevations.
The petitioner, Kevin Byrd, wrote to request that TTB amend the McMinnville viticultural area's proposed boundary to eliminate the 800-foot elevation restriction. He stated that he researched the information provided by Mr. Lindsay and found that the degree growing days for the higher elevations within the McMinnville viticultural area are indeed comparable to those at lower elevations. He also noted that the Lindsays' vineyard has a history of producing quality grapes.
TTB believes that the information presented by the commenters provides an adequate basis for amending the McMinnville viticultural area boundary originally proposed in Notice No. 12. Accordingly, the proposed restriction limiting the McMinnville viticultural area to land below 800 feet within the described boundary has been eliminated in this final rule. All land within the described boundary is included within the McMinnville viticultural area regardless of elevation.
The petitioner asserted that the geographic and climatic features of the McMinnville viticultural area distinguish it from surrounding areas of the Willamette Valley.
According to the petitioner, the McMinnville viticultural area's location just east of the Coast Range and northeast of the Van Duzer Corridor greatly affects its growing season temperatures and precipitation. He submitted temperature and precipitation data from the Oregon Climate Service comparing McMinnville with two other sites in the western Willamette Valley—Dallas, Oregon, to the south of McMinnville, and Scoggins Dam, Oregon, to the north.
The submitted data show that McMinnville is, on average, warmer and drier than Dallas and Scoggins Dam. McMinnville averaged 2,178 degree growing days above 50 degrees (each degree that a day's mean temperature is above 50 degrees F counts as one degree day) during the growing season for the years 1971-2000, with average yearly precipitation of 41.66 inches. Dallas, for the same period, averaged 2,116 degree growing days above 50 degrees, with precipitation of 49.13 inches. Scoggins Dam, for the period, averaged 1,974 degree growing days above 50 degrees, with precipitation of 50.68 inches.
The petitioner explained that cooler and wetter conditions south of McMinnville viticultural area are due to the Van Duzer Corridor, a pass through Oregon's Coast Range. Cool, wet marine air flows inland through this pass, causing cooler, wetter growing conditions in areas east of the pass. North and west of McMinnville, at Scoggins Dam for example, the petition stated that the land makes a rapid transition to the slopes of the Coast Range, which has much cooler temperatures and greater rainfall.
According to the petitioner, the soils and geology of the McMinnville viticultural area are different from those in surrounding areas, thus providing distinctive growing conditions for the area's grapes. To demonstrate the soil differences, the petitioner submitted soil survey maps published by the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Several types of shallow (less than 40 inches deep) silty clay and clay loams that exhibit low total available moisture characterize the McMinnville viticultural area. These soils, primarily Yamhill, Nekia, Peavine, Willakenzie, and Hazelair, all have a typical depth to base materials of between 20 and 40 inches, while the average total available moisture for these soils ranges from 4.8 to 6.3 inches.
To the west and northwest of the McMinnville viticultural area, the petition notes, the soils transition to those of the Olyic and Hembre associations. While these soils are also shallow silty clay and clay loams, they tend to be acidic. To the north of the McMinnville area (within another proposed viticultural area named Yamhill-Carlton District), a greater percentage of the soils are of the Woodburn-Willamette association. These soils are of greater depth (60 inches) and have higher available moisture (12 to 13 inches). The Woodburn-Willamette soils also predominate to the south and southwest of the McMinnville area.
The petitioner stated that the most distinctive geological feature within the McMinnville viticultural area is the Nestucca Formation, a 2,000-foot thick bedrock formation that extends west from the city of McMinnville to the slopes of the Coast Range. This formation contains marine sandstone and mudstone with intrusions of marine basalts. These intrusions differentiate the formation from the pure basaltic parent materials found under the Red Hills and Chehalem Mountains and the pure marine sedimentary materials of the Yamhill Formation found on the valley floor.
Because of these marine basalts, the petition notes that the ground water composition of the McMinnville
See the narrative boundary description of the viticultural area in the regulatory text published at the end of this notice.
The petitioner(s) provided the required maps, and we list them below in the regulatory text.
After careful review of the petition and the comments, TTB finds that the evidence submitted supports the establishment of the proposed viticultural area. Therefore, under the authority of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and part 4 of our regulations, we establish the “McMinnville” viticultural area in Yamhill County, Oregon, effective 60-days from this document's publication date.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. With the establishment of this viticultural area and its inclusion in part 9 of the TTB regulations, its name, “McMinnville,” is recognized as a name of viticultural significance. Consequently, wine bottlers using “McMinnville” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, must ensure that the product is eligible to use the viticultural area's name as an appellation of origin.
For a wine to be eligible to use as an appellation of origin the name of a viticultural area specified in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of the grapes used to make the wine must have been grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible to use the viticultural area name as an appellation of origin and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the viticultural area name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label.
Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a viticultural area name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
We certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name is the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735). Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment.
Jennifer Berry of the Regulations and Procedures Division drafted this document.
Wine.
27 U.S.C. 205.
(a)
(b)
(1) McMinnville, Oregon, 1957, revised 1992;
(2) Muddy Valley, Oregon, 1979, revised 1992;
(3) Stony Mountain, Oregon, 1979, revised 1992;
(4) Sheridan, Oregon, 1956, revised 1992; and
(5) Ballston, Oregon, 1956, revised 1992.
(c)
(1) The beginning point is on the McMinnville, Oregon, map where the 200-foot contour line intersects the common boundary between section 13, T4S, R5W, and section 18, T4S, R4W. From this point follow the meandering 200-foot contour line westerly for about 2 miles to its intersection with Baker Creek Road in section 54, T4W, R5W, on the Muddy Valley map;
(2) Then follow Baker Creek Road west about 2 miles through Happy Valley to the road's intersection with Power House Hill Road in section 50, T4S, R5W (Muddy Valley map);
(3) Proceed southwest on Power House Hill Road for about 1.4 miles to its intersection with Peavine Road in section 17, T4S, R5W (Muddy Valley map);
(4) Follow Peavine Road west and then northwest about 1.5 miles to its intersection with Gill Creek in section 18, T4S, R5W (Muddy Valley map);
(5) Follow Gill Creek southerly (downstream) for about 0.6 miles to its intersection with the 800-foot contour line in section 18, T4S, R5W, on the Muddy Valley map;
(6) From Gill Creek, follow the meandering 800-foot contour line westerly, crossing Deer Creek in section 14, T4S, R6W, on the Stony Mountain map, and, crossing back and forth four times between the Stony Mountain and Muddy Valley maps in section 24, T4S, R6W, continue southwesterly to the contour line's intersection with Thomson Mill Road in section 27, T4S, R6W, on the Stony Mountain map;
(7) Continue to follow the meandering 800-foot contour line southwesterly, crossing Cronin and Beaver Creeks, to the 800-foot contour line's intersection with Rock Creek Road in section 46, T5S, R6W, on the Stony Mountain map;
(8) Then follow Rock Creek Road south for about 5 miles to its intersection with the West Valley Highway in section 44, T5S, R6W, on the Sheridan map, and continue about
(9) Then follow the meandering 200-foot contour line easterly, passing north of most of the village of Sheridan, crossing onto the Ballston map, and continue easterly and then northerly along the 200-foot contour line to its first intersection with Christensen Road at the common boundary between sections 27 and 34, T5S, R5W (Ballston map);
(10) Continue to follow the 200-foot contour line westerly and then northerly, passing onto the Muddy Valley map and then the Stony Mountain map, to the contour line's intersection with Deer Creek in section 64, T5S, R6W (Stony Mountain map);
(11) Cross Deer Creek and follow the 200-foot contour line southeasterly, crossing Dupree Creek in section 64, T5S, R6W, on the Muddy Valley map, and, crossing onto the Ballston map, continue southerly and then easterly along the 200-foot contour line to its intersection with State Route 18 at the hamlet of Bellevue, section 28, T5S, R5W (Ballston map);
(12) Continue westerly then northerly along the meandering 200-foot contour line, crossing Latham Road at the northern boundary of section 53, T5S, R5W, and, crossing onto the Muddy Valley map, continue northerly along the 200-foot contour line to its intersection with Muddy Creek in section 40, T5S, R5W (Muddy Valley map);
(13) Crossing Muddy Creek, follow the 200-foot contour line southerly, then easterly, and then northerly to its intersection with Peavine Road in the western extension of section 47, T4S, R5W (Muddy Valley map);
(14) From Peavine Road, continue northeasterly along the meandering 200-foot contour line, crossing Cozine Creek in section 46, T4S, R5W, and, crossing onto the McMinnville map, follow the 200-foot contour line across Redmond Hill Road in section 44, T4S, R5W, and return to the point of beginning (McMinnville map)
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
Final rule.
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of the Treasury exempts a new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) system of records entitled “IRS 42.031—Anti-Money Laundering/Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and Form 8300 Records” from certain provisions of the Privacy Act.
January 18, 2005.
IRS National Anti-Money Laundering Program Manager, S: C: CP: RE: AML, 19th Floor, 1601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, phone (215) 861-1547.
The IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking on April 30, 2004 at 69 FR 23705-23706 exempting the new system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. The IRS published the proposed system notice in its entirety at 69 FR 23854 on April 30, 2004. No comments were received by the IRS.
Under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), the head of an agency may promulgate rules to exempt any system of records within the agency from certain provisions of the Privacy Act if the system is investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes. The exemption is from provisions 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f) because the system contains investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes. The following are the reasons why this system of records maintained by the IRS is exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) of the Privacy Act of 1974.
(1) 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3). This provision of the Privacy Act provides for the release of the disclosure accounting required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(c) (1) and (2) to the individual named in the record at his/her request. The reasons for exempting this system of records from the foregoing provision is:
(i) The release of disclosure accounting would put the subject of an investigation on notice that an investigation exists and that such person is the subject of that investigation.
(ii) Such release would provide the subject of an investigation with an accurate accounting of the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure and the name and address of the person or agency to which disclosure was made. The release of such information to the subject of an investigation would provide the subject with significant information concerning the nature of the investigation and could result in the altering or destruction of documentary evidence, the improper influencing of witnesses, and other activities that could impede or compromise the investigation.
(iii) Release to the individual of the disclosure accounting would alert the individual as to which agencies were investigating the subject and the scope of the investigation and could aid the individual in impeding or compromising investigations by those agencies.
(2) 5 U.S.C. 552a(d), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (f). These provisions of the Privacy Act relate to an individual's right to be notified of the existence of records pertaining to such individual; requirements for identifying an individual who requested access to records, the agency procedures relating to access to records and the content of the information contained in such records and the civil remedies available to the individual in the event of adverse determinations by an agency concerning access to or amendment of information contained in record systems. The reasons for exempting this system of records from the foregoing provisions are as follows: To notify an individual at the individual's request of the existence of an investigative file pertaining to such individual or to grant access to an investigative file pertaining to such individual could interfere with investigative and enforcement proceedings; deprive co-defendants of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication; constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of others; disclose the identity of confidential sources and reveal confidential information supplied by such sources; and, disclose investigative techniques and procedures.
(3) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1). This provision of the Privacy Act requires each agency to maintain in its records only such information about an individual as is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required to be accomplished by statute or executive order. The reasons for exempting this system of records from the foregoing are as follows:
(i) The IRS will limit the Anti-Money Laundering/Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and Form 8300 Records to those relevant and necessary for identifying, monitoring, and responding to
(ii) Relevance and necessity are questions of judgment and timing. What appears relevant and necessary when first received may subsequently be determined to be irrelevant or unnecessary. It is only after the information is evaluated that the relevance and necessity of such information can be established with certainty.
(4) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(I). This provision of the Privacy Act requires the publication of the categories of sources of records in each system of records. The reasons an exemption from this provision has been claimed are as follows:
(i) Revealing categories of sources of information could disclose investigative techniques and procedures;
(ii) Revealing categories of sources of information could cause sources that supply information to investigators to refrain from giving such information because of fear of reprisal, or fear of breach of promises of anonymity and confidentiality.
As required by Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action, and therefore, does not require a regulatory impact analysis.
The regulation will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, it is hereby certified that these regulations will not significantly affect a substantial number of small entities. The rule imposes no duties or obligations on small entities.
In accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department of the Treasury has determined that this rule would not impose new recordkeeping, application, reporting, or other types of information collection requirements.
Privacy.
5 U.S.C. 301 and 31 U.S.C. 321. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552 as amended. Subpart C also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a.
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(viii) * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone from January 14 through January 25, 2005, encompassing certain waters of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers. This action is necessary to provide for the security of persons and property, and prevent terrorist acts or incidents during the 2005 Presidential Inauguration activities in Washington, DC. This rule prohibits vessels and persons from entering the security zone and requires vessels and persons in the security zone to depart the security zone, unless specifically exempt under the provisions in this rule or granted specific permission from the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore.
This rule is effective from 4 a.m. local time on January 14, 2005, through 10 p.m. local time on January 25, 2005.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD05-04-210 and are available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Activities Baltimore, Waterways Management Branch, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Mr. Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard Activities Baltimore, Waterways Management Branch, at telephone number (410) 576-2674 or (410) 576-2693.
On December 3, 2004, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Security Zone; Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, Washington, DC and Arlington and Fairfax Counties, Virginia” in the
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) in Advisory 02-07 advised U.S. shipping interests to maintain a heightened state of alert against possible terrorist attacks. MARAD more recently issued Advisory 03-06 informing operators of maritime interests of increased threat possibilities to vessels and facilities and a higher risk of terrorist attack to the transportation community in the United States. The ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq have made it prudent for U.S. ports and waterways to be on a higher state of alert because the al Qaeda
Due to increased awareness that future terrorist attacks are possible the Coast Guard, as lead federal agency for maritime homeland security, has determined that the Coast Guard Captain of the Port must have the means to be aware of, deter, detect, intercept, and respond to asymmetric threats, acts of aggression, and attacks by terrorists on the American homeland while still maintaining our freedoms and sustaining the flow of commerce. This security zone is part of a comprehensive port security regime designed to safeguard human life, vessels, and waterfront facilities against sabotage or terrorist attacks.
The Captain of the Port Baltimore is establishing a security zone for the 2005 Presidential Inauguration activities in Washington, DC to address the aforementioned security concerns and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against a large gathering of high-ranking officials and spectators in Washington, DC, would have. This security zone applies to all waters of the Potomac River from shoreline to shoreline bounded by the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge upstream to the Key Bridge, including the waters of the Anacostia River downstream from the Highway 50 Bridge to the confluence with the Potomac River, including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin, from January 14 through January 25, 2005. Vessels underway at the time this security zone is implemented will immediately proceed out of the zone. We will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners to further publicize the security zone. This security zone is issued under authority contained in 50 U.S.C. 191 and 33 U.S.C. 1226.
Except for Public vessels and vessels at berth, mooring or at anchor, this rule temporarily requires all vessels in the designated security zone as defined by this rule to depart the security zone. However, the Captain of the Port may, in his discretion grant waivers or exemptions to this rule, either on a case-by-case basis or categorically to a particular class of vessel that otherwise is subject to adequate control measures.
The Coast Guard received no comments on the proposed rule during the comment period published in the NPRM. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. As a result, no change to the proposed regulatory text was made.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to operate or transit on a portion of the Potomac River, from the surface to the bottom, from the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge upstream to the Key Bridge, including the waters of the Anacostia River downstream from the Highway 50 Bridge to the confluence with the Potomac River, including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin. This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because vessels with compelling interests that outweigh the port's security needs may be granted waivers from the requirements of the security zone.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Mr. Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard Activities Baltimore, Waterways Management Branch, at telephone number (410) 576-2674.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This regulation establishes a security zone. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore. Except for Public vessels and vessels at berth, mooring or at anchor, all vessels in this zone are to depart the security zone. However, the Captain of the Port may, in his discretion grant waivers or exemptions to this rule, either on a case-by-case basis or categorically to a particular class of vessel that otherwise is subject to adequate control measures.
(3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone must first obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Baltimore. To seek permission to transit the area, the Captain of the Port Baltimore can be contacted at telephone number (410) 576-2693. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on VHF Marine Band Radio, VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Baltimore and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while within the zone.
(4)
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA today designates two Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites (ODMDSs) in the Atlantic Ocean offshore Southeast Florida, as EPA-approved ocean dumping sites for the disposal of suitable dredged material. One site is located offshore Palm Beach Harbor, Florida and the other offshore Port Everglades Harbor, Florida. This action is necessary to provide acceptable ocean disposal sites for consideration as an option for dredged material disposal projects in the vicinity of Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor. These site designations are for an indefinite period of time, but the sites will be subject to continued monitoring to insure that unacceptable adverse environmental impacts do not occur. The interim designated ocean disposal sites located offshore Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor are de-designated by this rule.
This rule is effective on February 17, 2005.
The administrative record for this action is available for public inspection at the following location: EPA Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
Christopher J. McArthur, Ocean Dumping Program Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Coastal Section, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303, telephone: (404)562-9391, e-mail:
Section 102(c) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401
A list of “Approved Interim and Final Ocean Dumping Sites” was published on January 11, 1977 (42 FR 2461
Entities potentially affected by this action are persons, organizations, or government bodies seeking to dispose of dredged material into ocean waters offshore Port Everglades Harbor and Palm Beach Harbor, Florida, under the MPRSA and its implementing regulations. This final rule is expected to be primarily of relevance to (a) parties seeking permits from the COE to transport dredged material for the purpose of disposal into ocean waters and (b) to the COE itself for its own dredged material disposal projects. Potentially regulated categories and entities that may seek to use the proposed dredged material disposal sites may include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. To determine whether your organization is affected by this action, you should carefully consider whether your organization is subject to the requirement to obtain an MPRSA permit in accordance with Section 103 of the MPRSA and the applicable regulations at 40 CFR Parts 220 and 225, and whether you wish to use the sites subject to today's action. EPA notes that nothing in this final rule alters the jurisdiction or authority of EPA or the types of entities regulated under the MPRSA. Questions regarding the applicability of this final rule to a particular entity should be directed to the contact person listed in the preceding
Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321
EPA, in cooperation with the COE, has prepared a Final EIS (FEIS) entitled “Final Environmental Impact Statement for Designation of the Palm Beach Harbor Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site and the Port Everglades Harbor Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site.” On August 27, 2004, the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the FEIS was published in the
EPA received eight comment letters on the FEIS. Six letters were supportive of the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS designation based on need for the disposal site. The remaining two letters were from the State of Florida (the State) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The State's comments are discussed in the following paragraph
Pursuant to an Office of Water policy memorandum dated October 23, 1989, EPA has evaluated the proposed site designations for consistency with the State's approved coastal management program. EPA has determined that the designation of the proposed sites is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the State coastal management program, and submitted this determination to the State for review in accordance with EPA policy. In a letter dated October 22, 2004, the State concurred with this determination. In addition, as part of the NEPA process, EPA has consulted with the State regarding the effects of the dumping at the proposed sites on the State's coastal zone. EPA has taken the State's comments into account in preparing the FEIS for the sites, in determining whether the proposed sites should be designated, and in determining whether restrictions or limitations should be placed on the use of the sites. There were six main concerns raised by the State during consultation: (1) Placement of beach quality sand in the ODMDS; (2) the volume of material to be disposed and number of projects to use the sites; (3) the adequacy and recency of the data on the benthic habitat within and near the ODMDSs; (4) cumulative impacts of activities in the area; (5) potential adverse impacts to essential fish habitat and in particular the habitat of the blue-line tilefish; and (6) the potential of Florida Current spin-off eddies to transport disposed dredged material to important marine habitats. Concerns raised regarding use of suitable material for beach nourishment and other beneficial uses, were addressed in the FEIS. EPA concurs with the State regarding the use of suitable material for beach nourishment and other beneficial uses, in circumstances where this use is practical. The dredging projects currently proposed as well as potential future projects were discussed in more detail in the FEIS including a detailed discussion of anticipated project disposal volumes. Projects in excess of 500,000 cubic yards are not permitted at either ODMDS until additional capacity studies have been completed. The State was provided additional information on the benthic habitats within and adjacent to the ODMDSs including a copy of the video taken at the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS and quantification of the habitat types within each ODMDS. A pre-disposal high resolution bathymetry requirement was added to the Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) to address the State's concerns regarding recency of data. The discussion of cumulative impacts was expanded in the FEIS including discussions of additional activities in the area as requested by the State. EFH concerns were addressed by EPA through the development of an EFH Assessment for each ODMDS. The EFH Assessments were coordinated with the NMFS and the State and were included as part of the FEIS. EPA concluded that the designations will not have a substantial individual or cumulative adverse impact on the EFH of managed species including tilefish. The State's concerns regarding the potential of Florida Current spin-off eddies to transport disposed dredged material to important marine habitats have been addressed through modeling of the disposal plumes by the COE. The State was involved in selecting input parameters for the model and in reviewing the draft results. In addition, EPA has an ongoing effort at the nearby Miami ODMDS to address concerns regarding the potential of Florida Current spin-off eddies to transport disposed dredged material to important near-shore marine habitats.
In a letter dated June 7, 2004, the Florida Department of State agreed that it is unlikely that the proposed designations will affect any archaeological or historic resources listed, or eligible for listing, in the
The action discussed in the FEIS is the permanent designation for continuing use of ocean disposal sites offshore Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor, Florida. The purpose of the action is to provide an environmentally acceptable option for the ocean disposal of dredged material. The need for the permanent designation of the ODMDSs is based on a demonstrated COE need for ocean disposal of maintenance dredged material from the Federal navigation projects in the Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor areas. The need for ocean disposal for these and other projects, and the suitability of the material for ocean disposal, will be determined on a case-by-case basis as part of the COE's process of issuing permits for ocean disposal and a public review process for its own actions. This will include an evaluation of disposal alternatives.
For the ODMDSs, the COE and EPA would evaluate all federal dredged material disposal projects pursuant to the EPA criteria set forth in the Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR 220-229) and the COE regulations (33 CFR 209.120 and 335-338). The COE issues MPRSA permits to applicants for the transport of dredged material intended for disposal after compliance with regulations is determined. EPA has the right to disapprove any ocean disposal project if, in its judgment, all provisions of MPRSA and the associated implementing regulations have not been met.
The FEIS discusses the need for these site designations and examines ocean disposal site alternatives to the proposed actions. Non-ocean disposal options have also been examined in the Disposal Area Studies for Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor, prepared by the COE and included as appendices to the FEIS. Alternatives to ocean disposal may include upland disposal within the port areas, or utilization of dredged material for beneficial use such as beach nourishment. The studies concluded that upland disposal in the intensively developed port areas is not feasible. Undeveloped areas within cost-effective haul distances are environmentally valuable in their own right. Beach placement is limited to predominately sandy material.
The following ocean disposal alternatives were evaluated in the FEIS:
The continental shelf is narrow in the project area with a width of about 0.63 nautical mile (nmi). In the Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor nearshore area, hardgrounds supporting coral and algal communities are concentrated on the continental shelf. Disposal operations on the shelf could adversely impact this reef habitat. Therefore, following discussions with the State, a zone of siting feasibility for alternative ODMDSs was established eliminating from consideration any areas within 3 nmi of shore to avoid impact to natural reefs in the area. Consequently, no alternatives on the continental shelf were considered in the FEIS.
Two interim sites were designated for Palm Beach Harbor, one of which is located nearshore at the port entrance and the other is located approximately 2.9 nmi (4.5 km) offshore. Following discussions with the State of Florida, a zone of siting feasibility was established, eliminating from consideration any areas within 3 nautical miles of shore to avoid direct
The interim site for Port Everglades is located 1.7 nmi (3.2 km) offshore. A 1984 survey conducted by the EPA indicated that some damage to nearby inshore, hard bottom areas may have occurred due to the movement of fine grained material associated with disposed dredged material. In light of the survey findings, disposal at the Port Everglades interim site was discontinued and the site was eliminated from further consideration.
Alternative sites beyond the continental shelf considered for Palm Beach Harbor include the 3 mile site, the 4.5 mile site and the 9 mile site. The 4.5 mile site is approximately one square mile in size and is located within the eastern portion of the 3 mile site. The 3 mile site is four square miles in size. The 3 mile site was dropped from further consideration in favor of the 4.5 mile site as it was determined that a site four square miles in size was not necessary at the depths at this location. The 9 mile site is 4 square miles in size. The deeper depths at the 9 mile site result in a larger disposal footprint, due to greater dispersion, necessitating a larger 4 square mile disposal site. Both the 4.5 mile site and the 9 mile site were considered in the FEIS.
Alternative sites beyond the continental shelf considered for the Port Everglades Harbor include the 4 mile site and the 7 mile site. The 4 mile site is approximately one square mile in size whereas the 7 mile site is two square miles in size. The deeper depths at the 7 mile site result in a larger disposal footprint necessitating a larger 4 square mile disposal site. Both the 4 mile site and the 7 mile site were considered in the FEIS.
The No-Action Alternative would not provide acceptable EPA-designated ocean disposal sites for use by the COE or other entities for the disposal of dredged material. Without final-designated disposal sites, the maintenance of the existing Federal Navigation Projects at Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor would be adversely impacted with subsequent effects upon the local and regional economies. Interim designated ODMDSs are not available. Alternative dredged material disposal methods would be required or the dredging and dredged material disposal discontinued. In the absence of an EPA designated ocean dredged material disposal site, the COE could select an alternative pursuant to section 103 of MPRSA. In such cases, the ocean site selected for disposal would be evaluated according to the criteria specified in section 102(a) of MPRSA and EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulation and Criteria 40 CFR part 228, and EPA concurrence is required. A site so selected can be used for five years without EPA designation, and can continue to be used for another five years under limited conditions. Accordingly, the No-Action alternative would not provide a long-term management option for dredged material disposal.
The site near Palm Beach Harbor selected for ODMDS designation is an area approximately 1 square nautical mile (nmi
The FEIS presents the information needed to evaluate the suitability of ocean disposal areas for final designation use and is based on a series of disposal site environmental studies. The environmental studies and final designation are being conducted in accordance with the requirements of MPRSA, the Ocean Dumping Regulations, and other applicable Federal statutory provisions.
This final rulemaking notice fills the same role as the Record of Decision required under regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality for agencies subject to NEPA.
On July 30, 2004, EPA proposed designation of two sites for continuing disposal of dredged materials from Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor, Florida. The public comment period on this proposed action closed on September 13, 2004. Six letters of comment were received. All six letters were supportive of the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS designation based on the need for alternatives to upland disposal for maintenance and construction dredged material from the port. No comment letters were received for the Palm Beach Harbor ODMDS.
The ODMDS for Palm Beach Harbor is located east of Palm Beach, Florida, the western boundary being 4.3 nmi offshore. The ODMDS occupies an area of about 1 nmi
The ODMDS for Port Everglades Harbor is located east of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, the western boundary being 3.8 nmi offshore. The ODMDS occupies an area of about 1 nmi
Five general criteria are used in the selection and approval for continuing use of ocean disposal sites. Sites are selected so as to minimize interference with other marine activities, to prevent any temporary perturbations associated with the disposal from causing impacts outside the disposal site, and to permit effective monitoring to detect any adverse impacts at an early stage. Where feasible, locations off the Continental Shelf and other sites that have been historically used are to be chosen. If, at any time, disposal operations at a site cause unacceptable adverse impacts, further use of the site can be restricted or terminated by EPA. The general criteria are given in § 228.5 of the EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations, and § 228.6 lists eleven specific factors used in evaluating a disposal site to assure that the general criteria are met. The sites, as discussed below under the eleven specific factors, are acceptable under the five general criteria.
The characteristics of the sites are reviewed below in terms of these eleven criteria (the FEIS may be consulted for additional information).
The ODMDS for Palm Beach Harbor is located east of Palm Beach, Florida, the western boundary being 4.3 nmi offshore. Water depths within the area range from 525 to 625 feet with depth contours parallel to the coastline. The coordinates of the Palm Beach Harbor ODMDS are as follows:
The ODMDS for Port Everglades Harbor is located east of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, the western boundary being 3.8 nmi offshore. Water depths within the area range from 640 to 705 feet with depth contours parallel to the coastline. The coordinates of the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS designation are as follows:
Center coordinates are 26°07′00″ N and 80°01′30″ W. All coordinates utilize the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
The most active breeding and nursery areas are located in inshore waters, along adjacent beaches, or in nearshore reef areas. While breeding, spawning, and feeding activities may take place near the ODMDSs, these activities are not believed to be confined to, or concentrated in, these areas. While many marine species may pass through the ODMDSs, passage is not geographically restricted to these areas.
EPA initially coordinated with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on March 24, 2004. At that time, EPA sent NMFS a copy of the Draft EIS, which included two Appendices, each entitled Biological Assessment. Those Assessments evaluated the potential impacts from the site designations to Federally listed threatened and endangered species. In its letter, EPA referenced the Assessments, which concluded that the site designations “will not adversely affect” any listed species or critical habitat. While the letter stated that EPA concluded the action “will not affect” any listed species, EPA informally consulted with NMFS and sought comments from the NMFS on the proposed site designations with the March 2004 letter. In a May 24, 2004 letter of response, NMFS concluded that adverse effects on whales are unlikely to occur from this project and no effects to the shortnose sturgeon or smalltooth sawfish are likely to occur from this project.
On March 24, 2004, EPA also consulted with NMFS pursuant to Section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) 16 U.S.C. 1855, and the applicable implementing regulations. At that time, EPA sent NMFS a copy of the Draft EIS which included an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment within the body of the document. In a May 6, 2004 letter of response, NMFS requested a stand alone EFH Assessment that specifically addressed potential impacts to deepwater habitats, such as black corals and Oculina, and potential impacts to deepwater managed species including tilefish. The EFH Assessments were provided to NMFS on July 15, 2004 and included as appendices to the FEIS. Based on comments received from NMFS, EPA revised the EFH Assessments. Revised EFH Assessments for designation of the Palm Beach Harbor ODMDS and the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS were provided to NMFS on September 22, 2004 and October 12, 2004, respectively. The Assessments set forth EPA's determination that the site designation of the Palm Beach Harbor ODMDS and Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS will not have a substantial individual or cumulative adverse impact on the EFH of managed species. In letters dated October 19, 2004 and October 20, 2004, NMFS concluded that the fishery conservation requirements of the MSFCMA were completed for the Palm Beach Harbor ODMDS and the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS, respectively.
The disposal sites for Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor are located approximately 4.5 nmi and 4.0 nmi offshore, respectively. The nearest beaches are located on the shorelines west of the sites. Because of the distance of the sites from the shoreline, the predominate northerly directed current, and the expected localized effects at the disposal sites, it is unlikely that dredged material disposal at either of the sites would adversely affect coastal beaches. Amenity areas in the vicinity of the sites include artificial and natural reefs. Both sites are located at least 2.3 nmi from the nearest artificial reef. From West Palm Beach to the Florida Keys, there are generally three separate series of reefs or hard bottoms. The disposal sites for Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor are located approximately 2.6 nmi and 3.0 nmi from the outer of these reef series, respectively. In addition, colonies of the deepwater coral
The only material to be placed at the ODMDSs will be dredged material that meets the EPA Ocean Dumping Criteria in 40 CFR Parts 220 through 229. The sites are expected to be used for routine maintenance of the respective harbor projects. Annual average disposal
Surveillance and monitoring of the proposed sites is feasible. Survey vessels, aircraft overflights, or automated Geographic Positioning Systems (GPS) surveillance systems are feasible surveillance methods. The depths at these sites make conventional ODMDS monitoring techniques difficult to utilize. A draft Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for each ODMDS was developed and included in an appendix in the FEIS. The SMMPs were finalized by EPA and the COE in November, 2004. The SMMPs establish a sequence of monitoring surveys to be undertaken to determine any impacts resulting from disposal activities. The SMMPs may be reviewed and revised by EPA.
Prevailing currents parallel the coast and are generally oriented along a north-south axis. Northerly flow predominates. Mean surface currents range from 10 to 100 cm/sec depending on direction with maximum velocities up to 530 cm/sec. Current speeds are lower and current reversals more common in near-bottom waters. Mean velocities of 20 cm/sec and maximum velocities of 130 cm/sec have been measured for near-bottom waters in the area. Dredged material dispersion studies conducted by the COE for both short (hours) and long-term (months) transport of material disposed at the Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor sites indicate little possibility of disposed material affecting near-shore reefs or other amenities in the areas of the disposal sites.
There are no current or previous discharges within the ODMDSs. There are two interim-designated ODMDSs near Palm Beach Harbor. The disposal of 5.2 million cubic yards of dredged material from Palm Beach Harbor occurred between 1950 and 1983 in the interim sites. The characteristics of the dredged material were poorly graded sand with traces of shell fragments.
An interim-designated ODMDS at Port Everglades Harbor is located approximately 2.5 nmi west-southwest of the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS. The disposal of 220,000 cubic yards of dredged material occurred in this interim ODMDS between 1952 and 1982. The characteristics of the disposed dredged material were organic silt with some clay. A 1984 survey conducted by EPA indicated that some damage to nearby inshore, hard bottom areas may have occurred because of the movement of fine material associated with the disposal of dredged material at the site. In light of the survey findings, disposal at the Port Everglades interim site was discontinued after 1984.
There are two wastewater ocean outfall discharges in the vicinity of each proposed ODMDS. The nearest outfall to either of the proposed sites is 11 miles. The effluent from wastewater outfalls has undergone secondary treatment and chlorination. Significant adverse impacts to the marine environment have not been documented in association with either of these offshore wastewater outfalls. Any effects from these discharges would be local and predominately in a north-south direction due to prevailing currents. Therefore, these discharges should not have any effect within the sites.
The infrequent use of the proposed sites should not significantly disrupt either commercial shipping or recreational boating. Commercial and recreational fishing activities are concentrated in inshore and nearshore waters. No mineral extraction, desalination, or mariculture activities occur in the immediate area. Scientific resources present near the Port Everglades Harbor site include the South Florida Ocean Measurement Center (SFOMC, formerly the South Florida Testing Facility). The SFOMC is located 1.5 nmi south of the ODMDS. Interference with activities at the SFOMC is not expected.
Baseline surveys conducted for the Palm Beach Harbor and the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDSs show the water quality and other environmental characteristics of the proposed ODMDSs to be typical of the Atlantic Ocean. Salinity, dissolved oxygen, and transmissivity (water clarity) data indicated water masses over the sites were similar to water masses in open ocean waters and deviated little between sites. Macroinfaunal samples were dominated in numbers by annelids and arthropods. Water quality at the proposed ODMDSs is variable and is influenced by frequent Florida Current intrusions of offshore oceanic waters, and periodic up welling of deep ocean waters. The proposed disposal sites lie on the continental slope in an area traversed by the western edge of the Florida Current. The location of the western edge of the current determines to a large extent whether waters at the site are predominantly coastal or oceanic. Frequent intrusions or eddies of the Florida Current transport oceanic waters over the continental shelf in the vicinity of the ODMDSs. Periodic up welling/down welling events associated with wind stress also influence waters in the area.
No critical habitat or unique ecological communities have been identified within or adjacent to the ODMDSs.
The disposal of dredged materials should not attract or promote the development of nuisance species. No nuisance species have been reported to occur at previously utilized disposal sites in the vicinity of either ODMDSs.
Due to the proximity of ODMDSs to entrance channels, the cultural resource that has the greatest potential for impact would be shipwrecks. Sidescan sonar surveys of the sites were conducted which should have identified any potential shipwrecks. No such features were noted within the disposal sites in the sidescan sonar surveys of the disposal sites. No natural or cultural features of historical importance have been identified at either site. The Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources was consulted and they determined that it is unlikely that designation of the ODMDSs would affect archaeological or historical resources eligible for listing in the
Site management of the ODMDSs is the responsibility of EPA in cooperation with the COE. The COE issues permits to private applicants for ocean disposal; however, EPA Region 4 assumes overall responsibility for site management. Development of Site Management Plans is required by the MPRSA prior to final designation. A Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for each ODMDS was developed as a part of the process of completing the FEIS. The SMMPs were finalized by EPA and the COE in November, 2004. The plans provide procedures for both site management and for the monitoring of effects of disposal activities. The SMMPs are intended to be flexible and may be reviewed and revised by the EPA.
The FEIS concludes that the sites may appropriately be designated for use. The sites are also consistent with the five general criteria and eleven specific factors in the Ocean Dumping Regulations used for site evaluation.
The designation of the Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor sites as EPA-approved ODMDSs is being published as final rulemaking. Overall management of these sites is the responsibility of the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 4.
It should be emphasized that, if an ODMDS is designated, such a site designation does not constitute EPA's approval of actual disposal of material at sea. Before ocean disposal of dredged material at the site may commence, the COE must evaluate a permit application according to EPA's Ocean Dumping Criteria (40 CFR part 227) and authorize disposal. EPA has the right to disapprove the actual disposal if it determines that environmental concerns under MPRSA have not been met.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(A) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities;
(B) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(C) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(D) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
EPA has determined that this action does not meet the definition of a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866 as described above and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501,
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business based on the Small Business Administration's (SBA) size standards; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. EPA has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on small entities. The ocean disposal site designations will only have the effect of providing a long term, environmentally acceptable disposal option for dredged material. This action will help to facilitate the maintenance of safe navigation on a continuing basis. After considering the economic impacts of today's final action on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal Mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
EPA has determined that this action contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and tribal governments or the private sector. It imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, the requirements of section 202 and section 205 of the UMRA do not apply to this final rule. Similarly, EPA has also determined that this action contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Thus, the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA do not apply to this final rule.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This final rule addresses the designation and de-designation of ocean disposal sites for the potential disposal of dredged materials. This action neither creates new obligations nor alters existing authorizations of any State, local or other governmental entities. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. However, EPA did consult with State and local government representatives in the development of the FEIS and through solicitation of comments on the Draft and Final EIS. In addition, in the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed rule from State and local officials.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.” “Policies that have Tribal implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes.”
This action does not have Tribal implications. This action will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This final rule designates ocean dredged material disposal sites and does not establish any regulatory policy with tribal implications. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe might have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health and safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This final rule is not an economically significant rule as defined under Executive Order 12866 and does not concern an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. Therefore, it is not subject to Executive Order 13045.
This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
Although EPA stated that the proposed action did not directly involve technical standards, the proposed action and today's final action include environmental monitoring and measurement as described in EPA's SMMPs. EPA will not require the use of specific, prescribed analytic methods for monitoring and managing the designated sites. Rather, the Agency plans to allow the use of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or not, that meets the monitoring and measurement criteria discussed in the SMMP.
Executive Order 12898 requires that, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, each Federal agency must make achieving environmental justice part of its mission. Executive Order 12898 provides that each Federal
Because this action addresses ocean disposal site designations (away from inhabited land areas), no significant adverse human health or environmental effects are anticipated. Therefore, no action from this final rule would have a disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effect on any particular segment of the population. In addition, this rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on those communities. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 12898 do not apply.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2), federal agencies are required to “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried on by such agency * * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species * * *.” Under regulations implementing the ESA, a Federal agency is required to consult with either the FWS or the NMFS (depending on the species involved) if the agency's action “may affect” endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat.
EPA initially coordinated with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on March 24, 2004. At that time, EPA sent NMFS a copy of the Draft EIS, which included two Appendices, each entitled Biological Assessment. Those Assessments evaluated the potential impacts from the site designations to federally listed threatened and endangered species. In its letter, EPA referenced the Assessments, which concluded that the site designations “will not adversely affect” any listed species or critical habitat. While the letter stated that EPA concluded the action “will not affect” any listed species, EPA informally consulted with NMFS and sought comments from the NMFS on the proposed site designations with the March 2004 letter. In a May 24, 2004 letter of response, NMFS concluded that adverse effects on whales are unlikely to occur from this project and no effects to the shortnose sturgeon or smalltooth sawfish are likely to occur from this project.
The 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act amendments to the MSFCMA require the designation of EFH for Federally managed species of fish and shellfish. Pursuant to section 305(b)(2) of the MSFCMA, Federal agencies are required to consult with the NMFS regarding any action they authorize, fund, or undertake that may adversely affect EFH. An adverse effect has been defined by the Act as follows: “Any impact which reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may include direct (
On March 24, 2004, EPA consulted with NMFS pursuant to Section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) 16 U.S.C. 1855, and the applicable implementing regulations. At that time, EPA sent NMFS a copy of the Draft EIS which included an EFH Assessment within the body of the document. In a May 6, 2004 letter of response, NMFS requested a stand alone EFH Assessment that specifically addressed potential impacts to deepwater habitats, such as black corals and Oculina, and potential impacts to deepwater managed species including tilefish. The EFH Assessments were provided to NMFS on July 15, 2004 and included as appendices to the FEIS. Based on comments received from NMFS, EPA revised the EFH Assessments. Revised EFH Assessments for designation of the Palm Beach Harbor ODMDS and the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS were provided to NMFS on September 22, 2004 and October 12, 2004, respectively. The Assessments set forth EPA's determination that the site designation of the Palm Beach Harbor ODMDS and Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS will not have a substantial individual or cumulative adverse impact on the EFH of managed species. In letters dated October 19, 2004 and October 20, 2004, NMFS concluded that the fishery conservation requirements of the MSFCMA were completed for the Palm Beach Harbor ODMDS and the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS, respectively.
Executive Order 13089 (63 FR 32701, June 16, 1998) on Coral Reef Protection recognizes the significant ecological, social, and economic values provided by the Nation's coral reefs and the critical need to ensure that Federal agencies are implementing their authorities to protect these valuable ecosystems. Executive Order 13089 directs Federal agencies, including EPA and the COE whose actions may affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems, to take the following steps: 1. Identify their actions that may affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems; 2. Utilize their programs and authorities to protect and enhance the conditions of such ecosystems; and 3. To the extent permitted by law, ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out will not degrade the conditions of such ecosystems. It is the policy of EPA and the COE to apply their authorities under the MPRSA to avoid adverse impacts on coral reefs. Protection of coral reefs has been carefully addressed through the application the site designation criteria which require consideration of the potential site's location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, and passage areas of living marine resources and amenity areas, interference with recreation and areas of special scientific importance, and existence of any significant natural or cultural features at or in close proximity to the site (
Executive Order 13158 (65 FR 34909, May 31, 2000) requires that each Federal agency whose actions affect the natural or cultural resources that are protected by an Marine Protected Area (MPA) shall identify such actions and shall avoid harm to the natural and cultural resources that are protected by an MPA. The purpose of the Executive Order is to protect the significant natural and cultural resources within the marine environment, which means “those areas of coastal and ocean waters, the Great Lakes and their connecting waters, and submerged lands thereunder, over which the United States exercises jurisdiction, consistent with international law.”
EPA has reviewed the Marine Managed Areas Inventory maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Department of Commerce. The nearest MPA to either ODMDS is Biscayne National Park which is located greater than 20 nmi from the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS and greater than 40 nmi from the Palm Beach Harbor ODMDS. Therefore, EPA has determined that no MPAs will be affected by this action.
Environmental protection, Water pollution control.
33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.
(h) * * *
(21) Palm Beach Harbor, FL Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site.
(i) Location (NAD83): 26°47′30″ N., 79°57′09″ W.; 26°47′30″ N., 79°56′02″ W.; 26°46′30″ N., 79°57′09″ W.; 26°46′30″ N., 79°56′02″ W. Center coordinates are 26°47′00″ N and 79°56′35″ W.
(ii) Size: Approximately 1 square nautical mile.
(iii) Depth: Ranges from 525 to 625 feet.
(iv) Primary use: Dredged material.
(v) Period of use: Continuing use.
(vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to suitable dredged material. Disposal shall comply with conditions set forth in the most recent approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan.
(22) Port Everglades Harbor, FL Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site.
(i) Location (NAD83): 26°07′30″ N., 80°02′00″ W.; 26°07′30″ N., 80°01′00″ W.; 26°06′30″ N., 80°02′00″ W.; 26°06′30″ N., 80°01′00″ W. Center coordinates are 26°07′00″ N and 80°01′30″ W.
(ii) Size: Approximately 1 square nautical mile.
(iii) Depth: Ranges from 640 to 705 feet.
(iv) Primary use: Dredged material.
(v) Period of use: Continuing use.
(vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to suitable dredged material. Disposal shall comply with conditions set forth in the most recent approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.
If you wish to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional Office or the NFIP servicing contractor.
Michael M. Grimm, Mitigation Division, 500 C Street, SW.; Room 412, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2878.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program, 42 U.S.C. 4001
In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has identified the special flood hazard areas in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the FIRM if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
Each community receives a 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letter addressed to the Chief Executive Officer that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications have been made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
42 U.S.C. 4001
Office of the Secretary, Transportation.
Final rule.
The Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) is amending its regulations to reflect a change in Secretarial delegations. The Secretary is delegating to the Administrators of all Department of Transportation (DOT) agencies, the General Counsel, and the Director of Intelligence and Security the Secretary's authority to determine that information is Sensitive Security Information and available only under prescribed circumstances.
January 5, 2005.
Robert I. Ross, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street SW., Room 10102, Washington, DC 20590. Voice: (202) 366-9156. Fax: (202)366-9170. E-mail:
For many years, DOT's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had statutory authority to prevent disclosure of information related to aviation security, termed “Sensitive Security Information (SSI).” In the leading case of
1. The statute under which FAA restricted disclosure of this information—49 U.S.C. App. 1357(d) (2) (1993)—qualified under Exemption 3 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as a “statute (A) [that] requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a way as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld.” (5 U.S.C. 552(b) (3)). Hence, SSI may be withheld from public disclosure under FOIA.
2. The information may be withheld from the public rulemaking record in an informal rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553.
3. The information may be withheld from discovery in civil litigation.
In response to the attacks upon the United States on September 11, 2001, Congress enacted the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 (2001)), which created in DOT a new Transportation Security Administration (TSA). 49 U.S.C. 114. That statute also transferred from the FAA to the TSA the authority to denominate information as SSI and expanded the scope of that authority to all modes of transportation. 49 U.S.C. 114(s). When Congress created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, (Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064 (2002)), it transferred TSA from DOT to DHS, continued its SSI authority, and gave similar authority to DOT, again as to all modes of transportation. See 49 U.S.C. 40119(b).
Both 49 U.S.C. 114(s) and 49 U.S.C. 40119(b) require, as did 49 U.S.C. App. 1357(d) (2), that the agency administering SSI authority promulgate regulations specifying the types of information qualifying for SSI treatment. FAA's regulations appeared at 14 CFR part 191; DOT's appear at 49 CFR part 15, Protection of Sensitive Security Information; TSA's appear at 49 CFR part 1520, Protection of Sensitive Security Information.
Part 15 sets forth categories of information that qualify as SSI and authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to determine that specific items of information come within any of those categories. The purpose of this document is to delegate to all DOT Administrators this authority of the Secretary as to matters within their purview, with authority to redelegate within their own organizations; and to delegate this authority to the General Counsel and the Director of Intelligence and Security for all matters in DOT.
This rule is being published as a final rule and made effective on the date signed by the Secretary. As the rule relates to Departmental management, procedures, and practices, notice and comment on it are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). In addition, since this rule relates to internal procedures, there is good cause to make it effective in less than 30 days pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
The Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or under the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. There are no costs associated with this rule. Because this rule will only apply to internal DOT operations, OST certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. OST also has determined that there are not sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a federalism statement.
This rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
OST has determined that the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this rulemaking.
Authority delegations, Organizations and functions.
49 U.S.C. 322; 46 U.S.C. 2104(a); 28 U.S.C. 2672; 31 U.S.C. 3711(a)(2); Pub. L. 101-552, 104 Stat. 2736; Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748; Pub. L. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597.
(a) * * *
(19) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 40119(b), as implemented by 49 CFR part 15, relating to the determination that information is Sensitive Security Information within their respective organizations.
(t) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 40119(b), as implemented by 49 CFR part 15, relating to the determination that information is Sensitive Security Information.
(c) Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 40119(b), as implemented by 49 CFR part 15, relating to the determination that information is Sensitive Security Information.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; correction.
NMFS published in the
Effective January 1, 2005.
Sarah McLaughlin, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9279, fax (978) 281-9135.
The final rule, including final quota specifications for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries, was published in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Re-opening and removal of daily poundage limits.
NMFS announces that the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), is re-opening the Eastern U.S./Canada Area to all limited access NE multispecies days-at-sea (DAS) vessels and is removing the prohibition on all NE multispecies limited access vessels from harvesting, possessing, or landing Georges Bank (GB) yellowtail flounder from within the entire U.S./Canada Management Area. This action also removes the yellowtail flounder and cod daily poundage limits for the entire U.S./Canada Management Area and Eastern U.S./Canada Area, respectively, but retains the 15,000 lb (6,804 kg) trip limit for GB yellowtail flounder and a 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) trip limit for GB cod, consistent with ensuring that the Total Allowable Catches (TACs) for these species will not be exceeded by the end of the 2004 fishing year.
Effective 0001 hr local time, January 14, 2005, through 2400 hr local time April 30, 2005.
Karen Tasker, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9273, fax (978) 281-9135.
Regulations governing the yellowtail flounder and cod landing limits within the U.S./Canada Management Area are found at 50 CFR 648.85(a)(3)(iv). The regulations authorize vessels issued a valid limited access NE multispecies permit and fishing under a NE multispecies DAS to fish in the U.S./Canada Management Area under specific conditions. The TAC allocation for GB yellowtail flounder for the 2004 fishing year was specified at 6,000 mt in the final rule implementing Amendment 13 to the NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Once 30 percent and/or 60 percent of the yellowtail flounder TAC allocations specified for the U.S./Canada Management Area are projected to have been harvested, the regulations at § 648.85(a)(3)(iv)(D) authorize the Regional Administrator to close access to the Eastern U.S./Canada Area to all limited access NE multispecies DAS vessels and prohibit all NE multispecies limited access vessels from harvesting, possessing, or landing GB yellowtail flounder from the entire U.S./Canada Management Area to prevent overharvesting or underharvesting the yellowtail flounder TAC allocation.
Based upon Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) reports and other available information, the Regional Administrator determined that 85 percent of the GB yellowtail flounder TAC had been harvested by October 1, 2004 (69 FR 59815, October 6, 2004). NMFS closed the Eastern U.S./Canada Area, effective October 1, 2004, to all NE multispecies DAS vessels and prohibited all NE multispecies vessels from harvesting, possessing, or landing GB yellowtail flounder from the U.S./Canada Management Area, because of concerns that the yellowtail flounder TAC would be fully harvested or overharvested prior to the end of the fishing year. Full harvest or overharvest of the TAC was anticipated due to the amount of yellowtail flounder harvested by vessels targeting yellowtail flounder in the U.S./Canada Management Area, and because of concerns regarding expected yellowtail flounder bycatch by vessels targeting groundfish other than yellowtail flounder within the U.S./Canada Management Area. Additional concern was raised by the potential impact that may be caused by scallop vessels fishing in Closed Area II under the Sea Scallop Access Program implemented under Frameworks 16/39 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop/NE Multispecies FMPs. Because of these potential sources of yellowtail flounder harvest, this action was necessary to ensure that the GB yellowtail flounder TAC would not be exceeded during the 2004 fishing year.
At this time, data indicate that the amount of GB yellowtail flounder harvested under the Sea Scallop Access Program and the amount of GB yellowtail flounder bycatch caught by
Yellowtail flounder landings will be closely monitored through VMS and other available information and, once 100 percent of the TAC allocation for GB yellowtail flounder is projected to be harvested, the Eastern U.S./Canada Area will be closed to NE multispecies DAS vessels and the harvesting, possession, and landing of yellowtail flounder by NE multispecies vessels in the U.S./Canada Management Area will be prohibited, in accordance with the regulations § 648.85(a)(3)(iv)(C)(3).
This action re-opens the Eastern U.S./Canada Area to the harvest of GB yellowtail flounder, and essentially restores access to this area with similar restrictions before the closure by removing a prohibition on the possession of GB yellowtail flounder in the U.S./Canada Management Area in order to allow vessels to fully harvest the TAC of GB yellowtail flounder. If implementation of this action is delayed, NMFS could be prevented from permitting the full harvest of the GB yellowtail flounder stock, GB cod, and GB haddock TACs. The directed harvest of the GB yellowtail flounder stock began on May 1, 2004, and additional fishing opportunity on the stock was provided as of June 1, 2004, with the opening of the Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder Special Access Program (SAP). If a proposed rule for this action, or delay in effectiveness were required, access to the Eastern U.S./Canada Area, as well as the ability to harvest yellowtail flounder from within the entire U.S./Canada Management Area, would be delayed and would create an unnecessary burden on the industry. For the above reason, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3), proposed rulemaking is not necessary because it would be contrary to the public interest. Furthermore, because this rule relieves a restriction, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for this action.
This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS publishes this final rule to implement measures previously approved, but not implemented under Framework 16 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (Scallop FMP) and Framework 39 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP (Multispecies FMP) (Joint Frameworks). The implementation of these measures was delayed, pending approval of reporting and recordkeeping requirements by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This final rule allows general category scallop vessels to fish in the Northeast (NE) multispecies closed area access program implemented as part of the Joint Frameworks, provided that they comply with new recordkeeping and reporting requirements. OMB has approved the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for vessels with general category scallop permits, as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
Effective February 17, 2005.
Copies of the Joint Frameworks, their Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and the Environmental Assessment (EA) are available on request from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. These documents are also available online at
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule should be submitted to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA, 01930, and by e-mail to
Peter W. Christopher, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9288; fax 978-281-9135.
The final rule for the Joint Frameworks (69 FR 63460, November 2, 2004) established Scallop Access Areas within NE multispecies Closed Area I (CAI), Closed Area II (CAII), and the
A proposed rule including the management measures for general category scallop vessel access was published on August 26, 2004 (69 FR 52470). Several comments related to the measures for general category scallop vessel access to NE multispecies closed areas were submitted in response to the proposed rule. These comments and their responses were included in the November 2, 2004, final rule for the Joint Frameworks. Detailed descriptions, justifications, and summary of impacts of all of the management measures, including general category scallop vessel access to the NE multispecies closed areas, were included in that final rule and are not repeated here. The measures allowing general category vessel access to the NE multispecies closed areas were not made effective upon publication of the November 2, 2004, final rule because NMFS had not received OMB approval of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with these provisions, and because owners of general category scallop vessels required time to prepare for the new requirements. Since the reporting and recordkeeping requirements have been approved by OMB, general category scallop vessels are now subject to the following restrictions when fishing in the NE multispecies closed areas:
a. A possession limit of 400 lb (181.4 kg) of shucked, or 50 U.S. bushels (17.6 hL) of in-shell scallops per trip.
b. A set-aside TAC for general category vessels, equal to 2 percent of the overall scallop TAC for each Scallop Access Area, requiring general category vessels to stop fishing in the specific scallop Access Area once the set-aside TAC is reached. The general category set-aside TACs for 2004, 2005, and 2006, are as follows: (1) 2004; 167,904 lb (76 mt) in CAII and 154,368 lb (70 mt) in NLCA; (2) 2005; 64,860 lb (29 mt) in CAI and 153,971 lb (70 mt) in CAII; and (3) 2006; 56,482 lb (26 mt) in CAI and 135,937 lb (62 mt) in NLCA.
c. A limit on the number of trips that the general category fleet can take into the Scallop Access Areas, requiring general category vessels to stop fishing in the specific scallop Access Area once the total number of allowed trips is reached. The limits on the number of trips general category vessels may take for 2004, 2005, and 2006, are as follows: (1) 2004; 420 trips in CAII and 386 trips in NLCA; (2) 2005; 162 trips in CAI and 385 trips in CAII; and (3) 2006; 141 trips in CAI and 340 trips in NLCA.
d. A requirement to install and use a NMFS-certified vessel monitoring system (VMS) in order to notify NMFS when a vessel plans to fish in a Scallop Access Area.
e. A prohibition on retaining or landing NE multispecies, with a requirement to report all catch of yellowtail flounder, including discards, so that it can be counted against the yellowtail flounder TAC for the scallop fishery. This restriction is consistent with the provisions for general category vessels fishing in other exempted fisheries under the Multispecies FMP.
f. A requirement to carry at-sea observers when requested.
g. VMS reporting of scallop and yellowtail catch to monitor fishery activity and bycatch. (These requirements are also required of limited access scallop vessels).
h. A requirement that scallop dredge gear used within a Scallop Access Area be constructed with rings with a minimum diameter of 4 inches (10.2 cm) (Amendment 10 imposed this requirement for General category vessels fishing in open areas, but delayed the implementation of the requirement until December 23, 2004). Dredge width for general category vessels cannot exceed 10.5 ft (3.2 m).
The Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (RA) determined that the framework adjustments implemented by this final rule are necessary for the conservation and management of the Atlantic sea scallop fishery and the NE multispecies fishery and are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable law.
The measures implemented under the Joint Frameworks, including general category scallop vessel access to the NE multispecies closed areas, has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS, pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), prepared a FRFA in support of the Joint Frameworks, which was included in the November 2, 2004, final rule implementing the Joint Frameworks. The FRFA described the economic impact that this final rule, along with other non-preferred alternatives, will have on small entities, including general category scallop vessels effected by this action. The contents of the FRFA and the incorporated documents (the IRFA, the RIR, and the EA) are not repeated here, and a copy of these documents is available upon request (see
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide was prepared. The guide will be sent to all holders of general category scallop permits issued for the scallop fishery. In addition, copies of this final rule and guide (i.e., permit holder letter) are available from the RA and are also available from NMFS, Northeast Region (see
This final rule contains new collection-of-information requirements approved by OMB under the PRA. These new requirements apply to general category vessels only (the requirements already exist for other scallop vessels). Public reporting burden for these collections of information are estimated to average as follows:
1. Purchase and installation of VMS units, OMB #0648-0491 (1 hr per response);
2. Verification of VMS units, OMB #0648-0491 (0.083 hr per response);
3. Daily reporting via VMS without an at-sea observer on board, OMB #0648-0491 (0.17 hr per response);
4. Daily reporting via VMS with an at-sea observer on board, OMB #0648-0491 (0.17 hr per response);
5. VMS notification of intent to fish on the 25th of the month preceding the intended trip, OMB #0648-0491 (0.033 hr per response);
6. VMS notification of scheduled Access Area trip 72 hr prior to departure, OMB #0648-0491 (0.033 hr per response);
7. VMS notification of trip 1 hr prior to departure, OMB #0648-0491 (0.033 hr per response);
8. Polling of VMS units twice per hour, OMB #0648-0491 (0.0014 hr per response).
These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information.
Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS and to OMB (see
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
16 U.S.C. 1801
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) A scallop vessel issued a general category scallop permit when fishing under the Sea Scallop Area Access Program specified under § 648.60 and in the Sea Scallop Access Areas described in § 648.59(b) through (d);
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B) of this section, subject to the possession limit specified in §§ 648.52(b) and 648.60(a)(5), and subject to the seasonal restrictions specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, a vessel issued a general category scallop permit may not enter in, or fish for, possess, or land sea scallops in or from the Closed Area I Access Area once the Regional Administrator has provided notification in the
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(B) of this section, subject to the possession limits specified in §§ 648.52(b) and 648.60(a)(5), and subject to the seasonal restrictions specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, a vessel issued a general category scallop permit may not enter in, or fish for, possess, or land sea scallops in or from the Closed Area II Access Area once the Regional Administrator has provided notification in the
(d) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(5)(ii)(B) of this section, subject to the possession limits specified in §§ 648.52(b) and 648.60(a)(5), a vessel issued a general category scallop permit may not enter in, or fish for, possess, or land sea scallops in or from the Nantucket Lightship Access Area once the Regional Administrator has provided notification in the
(g)
(2)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(B)
(4)
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of public meeting.
This document announces a public meeting of interest to owners and operators of Raytheon Aircraft Company (Raytheon) Beech Models 45 (YT-34), A45 (T-34A, B-45), and D45 (T-34B) airplanes. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss technical issues and potential corrective actions related to the continued operational safety of the affected airplanes, specifically related to the structural fatigue of critical structure and Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2004-25-51.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will hold the public meeting on Tuesday, February 15, 2005, starting at 1 p.m. at the Hilton Airport Hotel in Kansas City, Missouri, and continuing from 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 16, 2005. Registration will begin at 12:30 p.m. on the day of the meeting.
We will hold the public meeting at the Hilton Airport Hotel, 8801 NW., 112th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64153; telephone (816) 891-8900.
If you are unable to attend, you may mail comments and information to FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, Continued Operational Safety Branch, ACE-113, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. You may also send comments electronically to the following addresses:
We will give the same consideration to any comments or information mailed to us as those presented at the public meeting.
•
•
•
The left wing center section failed 4 inches inboard of the forward wing attach fitting. FAA investigation revealed visual evidence of fatigue not previously addressed by Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2001-13-18 and AD 2001-13-18 R1, which FAA issued as a result of a 2003 accident near Conroe, Texas.
In November 2003, a Raytheon Beech Model A45 (T34A) airplane crashed after the right wing failed at Wing Station (WS) 34 on the forward spar and WS 66.00 on the rear spar. The airplane, operated by Texas Air Aces, crashed near Conroe, Texas. The wing was found about a quarter mile away from the crash site.
On May 28, 1999, FAA issued priority letter AD 99-12-02 to address the in-flight separation of the right wing on a Model A45 (T-34A) airplane. The airplane, operated by Sky Warriors, crashed near Rydall, Georgia, where the wing was found about a quarter mile away from the crash site. The left wing remained attached to the airplane following separation of the right wing. Examination of the right wing revealed structural fatigue cracks at several of the fracture surfaces. Although it did not separate from the airplane, the left wing showed several fatigue cracks at several locations. AD 99-12-02 required operating and speed restrictions on the affected airplanes and was superseded by AD 2001-13-18.
Based on all data on these accidents including the additional visual evidence of fatigue not previously addressed by AD 2001-13-18 or AD 2001-13-18 R1, FAA issued emergency AD 2004-25-51. This emergency AD required an inspection and/or modification program approved specifically for this AD by FAA Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO). In essence, AD 2004-25-51 grounded the T-34 fleet because of evidence of fatigue in locations not evaluated from the first two accidents. The FAA took this action until the situation could be more fully
All the technical aspects of this aging airplane issue need to be studied and understood in order for FAA to return the fleet to an airworthy status. The FAA will review and communicate (at the meeting) the events leading to emergency AD 2004-25-51 and the reasons for our action. The FAA will also provide its expectations for any actions the public may propose to restore the fleet to an airworthy and safe condition.
The meeting will allow the public the opportunity to discuss technical issues and communicate potential corrective actions related to the continued operational safety of the affected airplanes, specifically related to the structural fatigue of critical structure and AD 2004-25-51.
• There is no admission fee or other charge to attend or participate in this meeting. You are responsible for your own transportation and accommodations for the meeting. The meeting is open to all who requested in advance to present or who register on the day of the meeting. This is subject to availability of space in the meeting room.
• FAA representatives will conduct the meeting. We will have a panel of technical experts and managers to discuss information on the subject.
• The public meeting is intended as a forum to seek additional data and supporting methodologies from industry, the general public, and operators. You must limit your presentation and submittals to data of this issue.
• The meeting will allow you to present additional information not currently available to FAA and an opportunity for FAA to explain to you the methodology and technical assumptions that support our conclusions.
• FAA experts, industry, and public participants are expected to hold a full discussion of all technical material presented at the meeting. If you present conclusions on this subject, you must submit data that supports your conclusions.
• We will try and accommodate all speakers. In order to do this, we may need to limit the time for presenters.
• We can make sign and oral interpretation available at the meeting, as well as an assistive listening device. If you need this assistance, make your request to FAA at least 10 days prior to the public meeting.
• We will review and consider all material presented. Position papers or materials may be accepted at the discretion of the presiding officer. The FAA requests that you provide 10 copies of all materials for distribution to the panel members. You have the choice on whether you want to present copies of the material to the audience.
• The meetings are designed to solicit public views and information. Therefore, we will conduct the meeting in an informal and nonadversial manner.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Boeing Model 747-200C and 747-200F series airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking of the left and right C-3 frame upper closure fittings of the nose cargo door, and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD also provides an optional modification that, if done, would terminate inspections in certain areas. This proposed AD is prompted by reports indicating that fatigue cracking was found in the inboard flange above the flight deck floor on the C-3 frame upper closure fittings of the nose cargo door. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the C-3 frame upper closure fittings, which could extend and result in rapid depressurization of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 4, 2005.
Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD.
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to
• Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590.
• By fax: (202) 493-2251.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.
You can examine the contents of this AD docket on the Internet at
Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 917-6437; fax (425) 917-6590.
We invite you to submit any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at
We have received reports indicating that fatigue cracking was found in the inboard flange above the flight deck floor on the C-3 frame upper closure fittings of the nose cargo door on Boeing Model 747-200F series airplanes. The affected airplanes had accumulated approximately 20,000 to 23,500 total flight cycles. While cracks have been found previously in the C-3 frame upper closure fittings, these reports were of cracks in the inboard flange of a fitting. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the cracks extending, which could result in rapid depressurization of the airplane.
The C-3 frame upper closure fittings of the nose cargo door on Model 747-200C series airplanes are identical to those on Model 747-200F series airplanes. Therefore, these airplanes may be subject to the same unsafe condition.
We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2495, dated December 18, 2003. The service bulletin describes procedures for performing a detailed visual inspection for cracking of the C-3 frame upper closure fittings, including the flight deck floor tang, and corrective actions if necessary. The corrective actions include repairing, or replacing the fitting with a new fitting. The service bulletin describes procedures for repairs; however, if you find cracking that is outside certain limits, the service bulletin recommends that you contact Boeing for instructions for repairing the upper closure fitting, or replacing it with a new fitting. The compliance times for the initial inspection vary depending on the number of flight cycles that the airplane has accumulated as of the date of the initial release of the service bulletin (December 18, 2003), and whether certain modifications have been accomplished. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.
The service bulletin also describes procedures for modifying the upper closure fittings. This modification involves doing an open-hole high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of certain fastener holes, repairing if necessary, cold-working uncracked fastener holes, and installing new fasteners. If you do this modification, you do not need to continue inspecting the upper part of the closure fitting, though you must continue to inspect the flight deck floor tang.
We previously issued AD 91-11-01, amendment 39-6997 (56 FR 22306, May 15, 1991). That AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the frame structure and skin in the fuselage Section 41, and repair if necessary. That AD refers to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2265, Revision 7, dated January 25, 1990, as the appropriate source of service information for the required actions. That AD also states that installing new, improved body frame structure in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2272, dated January 12, 1987, constitutes terminating action for the required repetitive inspections for the structure replaced and other adjacent structure.
Paragraph (f) of this proposed AD refers to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2495, Figure 1 (for Group 1 and 2 airplanes) or Figure 2 (for Group 3 and 4 airplanes), as applicable, as the source for the compliance time for the initial inspection required by that paragraph (except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin”). For airplanes in Groups 1 and 2 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2495, the compliance threshold for the initial inspection is based on whether the Zone 7 modification in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2272 (the optional terminating action provided by AD 91-11-01) has been accomplished. If that modification has not been accomplished, the service bulletin specifies that the inspection in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2495 must be accomplished at the same time as the next scheduled inspection in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2265 (which is currently required by AD 91-11-01). If the Zone 7 modification in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2272 has been accomplished, the service bulletin specifies a compliance threshold of 3,000 flight cycles after the Zone 7 modification was installed. If the applicable threshold has passed, the service bulletin provides a grace period ranging from 250 to 1,000 flight cycles after the initial release of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2495, depending on the number of flight cycles the airplane has accumulated as of the initial release of that service bulletin.
For airplanes in Groups 3 and 4, the service bulletin specifies a compliance time of prior to the accumulation of 16,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after the initial release of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2495, whichever is later.
We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require the actions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2495, described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin.”
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2495 specifies that you may contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to replace or repair any cracked upper closure fitting, but this proposed AD would require you to replace or repair any cracked upper closure fitting in one of the following ways:
• Using a method that we approve; or
• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the FAA to make those findings.
Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2495 specifies compliance times relative to the date of the initial release of the service bulletin, this proposed AD would require compliance relative to the effective date of the AD.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2495 provides the following information in Note 4 of the
In this proposed AD, the “detailed visual inspection” specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2495 is referred to as a “detailed inspection.” We have included the definition for a detailed inspection in a note in the proposed AD.
This proposed AD would affect about 78 airplanes worldwide. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive comments on this AD action by March 4, 2005.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 747-200C and 747-200F series airplanes, certificated in any category.
(d) This AD was prompted by a report that a fatigue crack was found in the inboard flange of the left C-3 frame upper closure fitting above the flight deck floor. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the C-3 frame upper closure fittings, which could extend and result in rapid depressurization of the airplane.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Do a detailed inspection of the left and right C-3 frame upper closure fittings of the nose cargo door, including the flight deck floor tang, according to the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2495, dated December 18, 2003. Do the initial inspection at the applicable compliance time specified in Figure 1 (Group 1 and 2 airplanes) or 2 (Group 3 and 4 airplanes) of the service bulletin, as applicable; except, where the service bulletin specifies a compliance time relative to the date of the initial release of the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance relative to the effective date of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.”
(g) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by this AD: Before further flight, do applicable repairs or replace the fitting with a new fitting, according to the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2495, dated December 18, 2003; except, where the bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action, before further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved
(h) Doing all actions associated with the modification of the upper closure fitting, including performing an open-hole high frequency eddy current inspection for cracking of certain fastener holes and all applicable corrective actions; according to Figure 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2495, dated December 18, 2003; terminates the repetitive inspections of the upper part of the upper closure fitting required by paragraph (f) of this AD. However, inspections of the flight deck floor tang must continue, as required by paragraph (f) of this AD.
There is no terminating action available at this time for the inspections of the flight deck floor tang required by paragraph (f) of this AD.
(i) While Note 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2495, dated December 18, 2003, provides for adjusting the flight cycle threshold specified in the service bulletin by not counting flight cycles with a cabin pressure differential of 2.0 pounds per square inch or less, this AD does not allow this adjustment.
(j)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is extending the comment period for a release proposing to adopt new rules and amend existing rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to the fair administration, transparency, governance, and ownership of self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”), which was published for comment in the
Comments should be submitted on or before March 8, 2005.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
All submissions should refer to File Number S7-39-04. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
Nancy J. Sanow, Assistant Director, at (202) 942-0796, or Richard Holley III, Attorney, at (202) 942-8086, Division of Market Regulation, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-1001.
On December 8, 2004, the Commission published for comment the SRO Proposed Rulemaking.
The Commission received requests from interested persons to extend the comment period for this release to March 8, 2005, to coincide with the comment period for the Concept Release Concerning Self-Regulation.
By the Commission.
Departmental Offices, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) is issuing this proposed rule as part of its implementation of Title I of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (Act). The Act established a temporary Terrorism Insurance Program (Program) under which the Federal Government will share the risk of insured loss from certified acts of terrorism with commercial property and casualty insurers until the Program ends on December 31, 2005. This proposed rule is a clarification that, for purposes of calculating insurer deductibles and meeting the requirements for claiming the Federal share of compensation for insured losses, affiliations are to be determined based on the insurer's circumstances as of the date of the first certified act of terrorism in a Program Year.
Written comments may be submitted on or before February 17, 2005.
Submit comments by e-mail to
Howard Leikin, Senior Insurance Advisor; or David Brummond, Legal Counsel, Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, (202) 622-6770 (not a toll-free number).
On November 26, 2002, the President signed into law the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-297, 116 Stat. 2322). The Act was effective immediately. The Act's purposes are to address market disruptions, ensure the continued widespread availability and affordability of commercial property and casualty insurance for terrorism risk, and to allow for a transition period for the private markets to stabilize and build capacity while preserving State insurance regulation and consumer protections.
Title I of the Act establishes a temporary Federal program of shared public and private compensation for insured commercial property and casualty losses resulting from an act of terrorism, which as defined in the Act is certified by the Secretary of the Treasury, in concurrence with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. The Act authorizes Treasury to administer and implement the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, including the issuance of regulations and procedures. The Program will end on December 31, 2005. Thereafter, the Act provides Treasury with certain continuing authority to take actions as necessary to ensure payment, recoupment, adjustments of compensation and reimbursement for insured losses arising out of any act of terrorism (as defined under the Act) occurring during the period between November 26, 2002, and December 31, 2005.
Each entity that meets the definition of “insurer” (well over 2000 firms) must participate in the Program. The amount of Federal payment for an insured loss resulting from an act of terrorism is to be determined based upon insurance company deductibles and excess loss sharing with the Federal Government, as specified by the Act and the implementing regulations. An insurer's deductible increases each year of the Program, thereby reducing the Federal Government's share prior to expiration of the Program. An insurer's deductible is calculated based on a percentage of the value of direct earned premiums collected over certain statutory periods. Once an insurer has met its deductible, the federal payments cover 90 percent of insured losses above the deductible, subject to an annual industry-aggregate limit of $100 billion.
The Program provides a federal reinsurance backstop for three years. The Act provides Treasury with authority to recoup federal payments made under the Program through policyholder surcharges, up to a maximum annual limit. The Act also prohibits duplicate payments for insured losses that have been covered under other Federal programs.
The mandatory availability or “make available” provisions in section 103 of the Act require that, for Program Year 1, Program Year 2, and, if so determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, for Program Year 3, all entities that meet the definition of insurer under the Program must make available in all of their commercial property and casualty insurance policies coverage for insured losses resulting from an act of terrorism. This coverage cannot differ materially from the terms, amounts and other coverage limitations applicable to losses arising from events other than acts of terrorism. On June 18, 2004, the Secretary of the Treasury announced his decision to extend the make available requirements through Program Year 3.
As conditions for federal payment under the Program, insurers must provide clear and conspicuous disclosure to the policyholders of the premium charged for insured losses covered by the Program and of the Federal share of compensation for insured losses under the Program. In addition, the Act requires that insurers make certain certifications to Treasury and process and submit claims for the insured loss in accordance with appropriate business practices and any reasonable procedures Treasury may prescribe.
The Act also contains specific provisions designed to manage litigation arising out of or resulting from a certified act of terrorism. Among other provisions, section 107 creates, upon certification of an act of terrorism by the Secretary, an exclusive Federal cause of action and remedy for property damage, personal injury, or death arising out of or relating to an act of terrorism; preempts certain State causes of action; provides for consolidation of all civil actions in Federal court for any claim (including any claim for loss of property, personal injury, or death) relating to or arising out of an act of terrorism; and provides that amounts awarded in actions for property damage, personal injury, or death that are attributable to punitive damages are not to be counted as “insured losses” and not paid under the Program. The Act also provides the United States with the right of subrogation with respect to any payment or claim paid by the United States under the Program.
In implementing the Program, Treasury is guided by several goals. First, Treasury strives to implement the Act in a transparent and effective manner that treats comparably those insurers required to participate in the Program and provides necessary information to policyholders in a useful and efficient manner. Second, in accord with the Act's stated purposes, Treasury seeks to rely as much as possible on the
To assist insurers, policyholders, and other interested parties in complying with immediately applicable requirements of the Act, Treasury issued interim guidance to be relied upon by insurers until superseded by regulations. These notices of interim guidance have now been superseded by final regulations. General provisions, including the scope of the Program and key definitions, and rules on disclosures and mandatory availability are at Subparts A, B, and C of 31 CFR part 50 (68 FR 41250; 68 FR 59720). Treasury's rules applying provisions of the Act to State residual market insurance entities and State workers' compensation funds are at Subpart D of 31 CFR part 50 (68 FR 59715). The rules setting forth procedures for filing claims for payment of the Federal share of compensation for insured losses are at Subpart F of 31 CFR part 50 (69 FR 39296). Subpart G of 31 CFR part 50 (69 FR 39296) contains the rules on audit and recordkeeping, which specify record retention by insurers in connection with the handling and settlement of claims to enable Treasury to perform financial and claim audits. Subpart I of 31 CFR part 50 (69 FR 44932) contains Treasury's rules implementing the litigation management provisions of section 107 of the Act.
Under the Act and regulations, “affiliates” are treated collectively as one insurer for purposes of calculating the insurer deductible. This proposed rule amends Subpart F of 31 CFR part 50, which contains the claims procedures for insurers seeking the Federal share of compensation for insured losses, to clarify that for that Subpart's purposes, insurer affiliations for any Program Year shall be determined based on the insurer's circumstances as of the date of the first certified act of terrorism in that Program Year.
This change will clarify how deductible calculations, loss certifications, claims for the Federal share of compensation and receipt of payment are to be handled, considering that (1) affiliations of insurers may change over the course of a Program Year, and (2) there may be more than one act of terrorism certified in a Program Year. It is Treasury's intention to make known how such a combination of circumstances will be addressed under the Program so that insurers can plan their business affairs and transactions accordingly.
An insurer's deductible for a Program Year is based on direct earned premium from the prior calendar year. Through an interpretive letter, issued on December 1, 2003, Treasury addressed the question of how the direct earned premium (and consequently, the insurer deductible) would be determined for an insurer or insurer group where the composition of the affiliations has changed since the prior calendar year. The interpretive letter indicated that the affiliations in place at the time of the occurrence of the certified act of terrorism would govern how an insurer's or insurer group's direct earned premium would be determined and the resulting deductible calculated. This interpretation did not address the circumstance where more than one event is certified in the same Program Year.
Treasury thus believes it is necessary to provide additional guidance to insurers to clarify Program implementation should more than one act of terrorism be certified in a Program Year. In developing this proposed rule, Treasury examined a variety of other alternatives for determining insurer affiliations, including:
1. The determination of affiliations as of each certified act of terrorism;
2. The determination of affiliations as of the first certified act in a Program Year for which the particular insurer has losses;
3. The determination of all affiliations as of January 1 of each Program Year.
Treasury has concluded that the first alternative would produce unacceptable results because the insurer deductible is a Program Year deductible, not a per-event deductible. Any calculation of the deductible, in Treasury's view, must be applied against all insured losses consistently for the entire Program Year.
The second alternative, determining affiliations at the time of a first certified act in a Program Year for which an insurer actually has insured losses, would provide a higher degree of accuracy in reflecting the appropriate affiliations at the time of such an event. However, after examining the different ways that affiliations may change in the interim between events, Treasury considers this approach to be very complicated to describe and administer. Given the temporary nature of the Program, Treasury believes that this alternative would require too great an effort to overcome the possibility of confusion for both insurers and the Program.
The third alternative, determining affiliations as of January 1 of a Program Year, would be inconsistent with the interpretation Treasury has already issued. More importantly, Treasury considers this approach to have too great a potential to provide an inaccurate reflection of the insurance entity at the time of an actual certified act of terrorism. Since such an event can occur well into a Program Year, changes in affiliations may be significant.
It is Treasury's view that the proposed rule is a reasonable compromise approach, one that can be relatively easy to understand and follow and practical to administer. Under this approach, the affiliations used for calculating direct earned premium and the resultant insurer deductible for a Program Year are determined for all insurers as of the date of the first act of terrorism certified by the Secretary in a Program Year. This is regardless of whether the insurer has had any insured losses from the event. Treasury believes that the direct earned premium reported for the calendar year prior to the Program Year in which the certified act occurs can readily be determined for the insurers affiliated at the time of the first event. The insurer deductibles calculated from this information can be reasonably applied to that first event's insured losses as well as to the insured losses resulting from any certified acts in the remainder of the Program Year.
As a practical matter, Treasury is proposing that all requests for the Federal share of compensation for a Program Year will be processed based on the affiliations as of the first certified act in a Program Year, regardless of actual changes to those affiliations prior to the occurrence of another certified act within the same Program Year. This approach will allow Treasury to receive and maintain consistent information in providing the Federal share of compensation and reduce the potential administrative burden that Treasury might otherwise have in tracking and reviewing claims in this temporary program.
Terrorism risk insurance.
1. The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321; Title I, Pub. L. 107-297, 116 Stat. 2322 (15 U.S.C 6701 note).
2. Subpart F is proposed to be amended by adding a new section 50.55 to read as follows:
For the purposes of this Subpart F, an insurer's affiliates for any Program Year shall be determined based on the insurer's circumstances as of the date of the first certified act of terrorism in that Program Year.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Today EPA proposes to amend the rule on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System storm water permits to postpone until June 12, 2006, the requirement to obtain permit coverage for oil and gas construction activity that disturbs one to five acres of land. This would be the second postponement promulgated by EPA for these activities. EPA proposes this postponement in order to afford the Agency additional time to complete consideration of the issues raised by stakeholders about storm water runoff from construction activities at oil and gas sites and of procedures for controlling storm water discharges as appropriate to mitigate impacts on water quality. EPA intends to take final action with respect to today's proposal by March 10, 2005. Within six months of this final action (September 12, 2005), EPA intends to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before February 17, 2005.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OW-2002-0068, by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Agency Web site:
• E-mail:
• Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 4101 T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. OW-2002-0068. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation. 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 Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.
Jeff Smith, Office of Wastewater Management, Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency, at 202-564-0652 or e-mail:
Entities potentially affected by this action include operators of construction activities disturbing at least one acre, but less than five acres of land at oil and gas sites, North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes and titles: 211—Oil and Gas Extraction, 213111—Drilling Oil and Gas Wells, and 213112—Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations.
This description is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. This description identifies the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities not identified could also be affected. To determine whether your facility or company is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(15) and (e)(8). If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding
1.
2.
i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
The Water Quality Act of 1987 added statutory language in Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) that directs EPA to develop a phased approach to regulate storm water discharges. EPA published the Phase I Storm Water Rule on November 16, 1990 (55 FR 47990), establishing NPDES permit application requirements for “storm water discharges associated with industrial activity.” The Phase I regulations define large construction activities that disturb five acres of land and greater (or less than five acres of total land area that is part of a larger common plan of development or sale if the larger common plan will ultimately disturb five acres or more) as “industrial activity” under 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x) and, as such, they are required to obtain NPDES permit coverage for storm water discharges.
EPA published the Phase II Storm Water Rule in the
EPA's authority to promulgate the 1999 Phase II storm water regulations derives from CWA Section 402(p)(6) which directed EPA to designate for regulation sources of storm water for purposes of protecting water quality. EPA exercised this authority in 1999 to designate storm water discharges from small municipal separate storm sewer systems and small construction sites for NPDES regulation. However, significant questions arose after the 1999 promulgation regarding whether storm water discharges from small construction sites associated with oil and gas activities presented a water quality problem at a level that justified national categorical regulation through the NPDES permit program, as well as
During the past two years, EPA has gathered information on size, location and other site characteristics to better evaluate compliance costs associated with the control of storm water runoff from oil and gas construction activities. In addition, EPA has met with various stakeholders, including visits to a number of oil and gas sites with construction-related activities, to discuss and review existing best management practices for preventing contamination of storm water runoff resulting from construction associated with these oil and gas activities. Based on recent information provided by the U.S. Department of Energy, EPA now estimates that on average there are 30,000 oil and gas construction “starts” per year, including exploration and development activities. Although EPA was aware of this estimate two years ago (
EPA believes that further postponing the date for NPDES regulation is appropriate for these sources because the Agency needs additional time to complete its evaluation of the economic and legal issues that have been raised. Moreover, EPA is continuing to evaluate procedures and methods for controlling storm water discharges from these sources as appropriate to mitigate impacts on water quality. Through this action, EPA is proposing to exercise its authority under CWA Section 402(p)(6) to decide which sources to regulate through NPDES permits and in particular, when to regulate those sources. In the meantime, EPA strongly encourages oil and gas operators to employ best management practices (BMPs) while engaged in construction activities to minimize any water quality problems that may be associated with this type of construction. EPA strongly recommends that operators consider employing the BMPs described on the Agency's NPDES storm water Web site at:
In today's action, EPA is proposing to extend until June 12, 2006, the deadline for obtaining NPDES storm water permits for oil and gas construction activity that disturbs at least one acre, but less than five acres of land and sites disturbing less than one acre that are a part of a larger common plan of development or sale that disturbs between one and five acres. The text proposed at § 122.26(e)(8) is not meant to create any duty to apply for an NPDES permit that did not already exist as a result of EPA's Phase II regulations. Rather, this proposed amendment is meant merely to extend the permitting deadline for a certain class of dischargers.
During the next fifteen months, EPA intends to (1) complete the economic impact analysis; (2) complete the evaluation of the legal and procedural implications associated with several options that the Agency is considering with regard to regulation of storm water discharges from oil and gas-related construction sites; (3) continue to evaluate practices and methods operators may employ to control storm water discharges from the sites affected by this proposal. EPA intends to convene at least one public meeting with various stakeholders for the purpose of exchanging information on current industry practices and the effectiveness of those practices in protecting water quality and obtaining input on the appropriate approach for addressing construction storm water discharges from this industry. Finally, EPA expects to propose and take some subsequent final action based on the Agency's conclusions following these activities. EPA specifically solicits comment on the proposed extension of the permit deadline for small oil and gas sites. The Agency will address these comments when EPA takes final action on today's proposal which EPA intends to do by March 10, 2005. Regarding other possible options under consideration for a separate action, EPA does not have any specific draft regulatory language to share with the public at this time. Within six months of this final action, EPA intends to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and therefore is not subject to formal OMB review.
This proposed action would not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information; processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business based on SBA size standards; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because EPA proposes to postpone a deadline for numerous small entities to comply with NPDES permit requirements, this proposed action will not impose any burden on any small entity. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of Section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, Section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under Section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule to change an NPDES deadline would not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. The proposed rule would not impose any additional costs to these entities. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. For the same reason, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of Section 203 of UMRA.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. If promulgated, it will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials.
Executive Order 13175, entitled, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.”
This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.
Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This regulation is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866.
This proposed rule would not be subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. The only effect of this proposed rule would be to (1) delay the permit authorization requirement for discharges associated with certain construction activity at oil and gas sites by an additional fifteen months and (2) allow EPA time necessary to develop a further proposal to address storm water discharges from such activities.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Pub. L. 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. However, EPA is exploring the availability and potential use of voluntary consensus standards developed consistent with the NTTAA as a means of addressing storm water runoff from oil and gas construction activities. Assuming that EPA ultimately extends the permitting deadline as proposed, the Agency would expect any future action to incorporate the use of voluntary consensus standards where such standards are available consistent with NTTAA and the requirements of the CWA.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 122 continues to read as follows:
The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
2. Revise § 122.26(e)(8) to read as follows:
(e) * * *
(8) For any storm water discharge associated with small construction activity identified in paragraph (b)(15)(i) of this section, see § 122.21(c)(1). Discharges from these sources, other than discharges associated with small construction activity at oil and gas exploration, production, processing, and treatment operations or transmission facilities, require permit authorization by March 10, 2003, unless designated for coverage before then. Discharges associated with small construction activity at such oil and gas sites require permit authorization by June 12, 2006.
Department of Agriculture.
Notice.
The Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary) published in the
Ken Nagel, Administrative Management Specialist, Office of the Deputy Administrator for Field Operations, FSA, at (202) 720-7890, or at
The Secretary is issuing uniform guidelines pursuant to the 2002 Farm Bill in order to ensure that FSA County Committees are fairly representative of the agricultural producers covered by the relevant county or counties, including fair representation of socially disadvantaged (SDA) farmers and ranchers. The guidelines address County Committee election outreach efforts, procedures for nomination and election of County Committee members, and reporting and accountability requirements. FSA will be required to follow such guidelines in conducting FSA County Committee elections. The
USDA received 352 comments on the proposed uniform guidelines. About 65 percent of the respondents objected to the issuance of any guidelines, although many of these general complaints also contained objections to specific provisions. About 11 percent of the respondents agreed with all the proposed guidelines, and 24 percent commented on only specific provisions. In general, those respondents disagreeing with the proposed uniform guidelines believe that the FSA County Committee election process used in previous elections is fundamentally sound, and they wish to revert to the procedures used prior to the publication of the proposed guidelines. The majority of the specific objections were to the appointment of at-large members by the Secretary to represent the interest of SDA farmers and ranchers, nomination of candidates for County Committees by the Secretary, reduction of term limits for County Committee members from 3 to 2 terms, the mailing of ballots by voters directly to State offices, and increased centralization of the election process. Many of the comments received with these objections appear to be based on a form letter provided to County Committee members and employees from the National Association of Farmer Elected Committeemen. The American Corn Growers, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Cotton Council, National Farmers Organization, National Grange, and Women Involved in Farm Economics filed a joint letter with similar objections. Other individuals interested in County Committee elections also filed comments opposing all or specific sections of the proposed uniform guidelines.
Many of the supporters of the proposed uniform guidelines consisted of member organizations of the Rural Coalition. Other supporters of specific sections of the proposed uniform guidelines were the Minority Agricultural Producers Cooperative, the Twin Rivers Cooperative, the National Tribal Development Association, and the Farmers Legal Action Group. Individuals interested in County Committee elections also filed comments supporting all or specific sections of the proposed uniform guidelines; whoever, fewer individuals filed supporting comments than opposing comments.
While USDA received more negative than positive comments, section 10708 of the 2002 Farm Bill grants discretion to the Secretary to issue uniform guidelines if the Secretary determines they would be necessary. After evaluating the nationwide results of the County Committee elections, the Secretary decided that issuing uniform guidelines was warranted. The comments received have not changed this basic determination. The Secretary has, however, taken the logical course of action of addressing, and in some cases modifying, those specific provisions that drew significant numbers of comments.
A large number of comments concerned the Secretary's option under the 2002 Farm Bill to issue provisions allowing for the appointment of a member representing the interests of SDA farmers and ranchers to particular committees. However, the uniform guidelines do not contain any provisions for the appointment of an SDA voting member. What the guidelines do state is that the Secretary may consider whether to issue written provisions providing for such appointments. Such a determination would only be made after a complete analysis of the results of future County Committee elections. If it is determined that such provisions should be issued, proposed written provisions on County Committee appointments will be published in the
Many comments were received regarding nomination by the Secretary
Some respondents objected to a review of local administrative area (LAA) boundaries by the FSA national office in order to determine if redrawing such boundaries would assist in ensuring the fair representation of SDA producers. Commenters asserted that FSA County Committees have handled this process well for over 50 years, and that such boundary changing might introduce partisan bias into county elections. These objections must be considered in light of the realities of drafting LAA boundaries. First, the regulations contained in 7 CFR part 7 are being revised to contain more specific, neutral criteria that will guide FSA State and County Committees in their annual reexamination of LAA boundaries. The general standards governing the redistricting of national, State, and local legislative districts have evolved considerably since the 1930's as a result of the Voting Rights Act and the one-person, one vote decisions by the United States Supreme Court. While the Voting Rights Act and the one person, one vote standard may not apply directly to the drafting of FSA County Committee LAAs, generally accepted neutral redistricting criteria should be considered in drafting those LAAs. Even without guidelines on this issue, FSA State committees will continue to exercise oversight of this process. Nonetheless, the Secretary's authority regarding County Committees includes providing proper oversight to ensure that the criteria contained in the regulation are being applied. Finally, any examination and possible adjustment of LAA boundaries at the national level would be conducted by career staff, and would not result in changes unless the criteria contained in the regulation is determined to have been violated. Even then, any new boundaries would be subject to the same neutral criteria contained in the regulations.
A suggestion from a respondent that any proposal to re-draw LAA boundaries should include some mechanism for soliciting input from the public is well advised. Provisions of this type are already contained in the guidelines and any objections can be presented to the FSA State committees and considered by the State committees as part of their LAA redistricting approval process. As a result of this suggestion, however, provisions for such reviews will be strengthened in the final guidelines.
Suggestions were also made that County Committee members should be elected at-large. Such at-large elections might have the effect of diluting the voting strength of SDA producers and, thereby, might reduce the likelihood of election of SDA committee members. The uniform guidelines do provide that the Secretary may consider the use of at-large seats for certain County Committees in the future; however, the Secretary has determined not to use such at-large seats at this time. In light of all these considerations, except for a strengthening of the ability of the public to comment on proposed LAA boundary changes, the uniform guideline provisions concerning LAA boundaries have been left unchanged in the final guidelines.
Many respondents opposed reducing term limits from the current three-term limit to two terms. The most common reason given was the loss of institutional knowledge, along with the length of time required to properly train members in the programs administered by FSA. Those supporting the proposed guideline on this issue were concerned that many sitting County Committee members had been serving for too many years. Due to the reorganization of USDA, the term limit baseline had been reset in 1995 for all sitting County Committee members. This has resulted in many members having served on a County Committee well in excess of the 9 years mandated by the present 3-term limit. Such persons were not eligible to seek election in 2004, and the remainder will be barred from reelection in 2005 and 2006 as their LAAs rotate through the tree-year staggered election cycle. Since a term limit is neutral in terms of SDA status and could, therefore, be a detriment to presently sitting SDA committee members, a determination has been made to retain the current three-term limit. The final guidelines also clarify that an individual may not serve more than three consecutive terms or portions of terms.
A majority of those commenting on the provision to conduct annual reviews of County Committee elections supported annual reviews. Some respondents, however, were opposed to such reviews because, in their view, they are based on a perceived lack of trust of the administration of the election process by local FSA County Committees. Section 10708 of the 2002 Farm Bill continues to require the Secretary to ensure that participation by SDA producers and all other producers are fairly represented on FSA County Committees. Conducting annual reviews is one of many tools that the Secretary may use to ensure that there is such fair representation. Annual reviews also will ensure that all election procedures are followed in a uniform manner nationwide and that they are understood by County Committees and county office staff.
A substantial number of comments opposed the provision that requires that all marked ballots be returned directly to FSA State offices, and then be returned in sealed ballot boxes for public canvassing by the County Committees. Primary concerns were the potential for problems in collection and shipping of ballots by State offices and the added burden to State office staff. Concerns were also expressed that this procedure could politicize these elections, and that County Committees have conducted completely transparent elections in the past.
There is no reason to assume that career Federal employees handling ballots at the State office would be any more likely to inject political partisanship into the process of placing
The provision requiring that nomination forms be mailed to all eligible voters was supported in a majority of the comments. Supporters did not necessarily recommend a specific mailing be conducted, but expressed greater support that nomination forms should be included with a newsletter or some other mailing. Those in opposition to the mailing of nomination forms felt that the process would not be productive in gaining additional nominations.
It has been decided to require State and county newsletters, or any mailing announcing County Committee elections, to include a nomination form and instructions, but not to require a special mailing of nomination forms alone. The final guidelines also require that nomination forms be readily available on the FSA Internet site and publicly accessible in all USDA Service Centers. Reproducible versions of the nomination forms will also be mailed to FSA outreach partners.
Some respondents opposed centralized ballot production and mailing because of the additional costs they believed were involved in this new process, the problems encountered in the 2003 County Committee elections, and the assertion that the entire election system in the United States is county-based and administered and should not be centralized. Additional objections to centralized ballot production were based on the understanding that FSA has moved to this system because FSA management believed that county officers are not capable of administering and conducting fair and unbiased elections and that they believe that county office staffs should conduct all phases of the election process. Some supporters of increased centralization of the County Committee election process commented that they felt there has been, in some cases, significant local bias and unfairness in the manner in which these elections have been conducted, and that they would like the entire process to be removed from the hands of FSA county office staff.
The driving force behind the centralization of ballot printing and mailing is cost saving and efficiency. Furthermore, the maintenance of accurate and complete lists of USDA customers is an integral part of FSA's operations. Improvement of the accuracy of, and secure internal access to, FSA producer and other files will allow FSA and the entire Department to implement effective e-government programs and to better service the needs of USDA's customers. It should be noted that the process of centralization of ballot printing has uncovered significant instances in which lists of eligible voters were either outdated or contained serious errors. It should be further noted that election administrators in the United States are currently using central production and mailing of ballots for far more complex elections. Use of this procedure is in no way based on any evaluation of either the level of fairness or bias under which elections are conducted by county office staff. The Secretary has maintained this provision in the final guidelines.
Another change to the final uniform guidelines concerns who may receive a list of eligible voters. Pursuant to the Privacy Act, FSA issued a Privacy Act System of Records notice that pertains, in part, to the release of information about producers eligible to vote in FSA County Committee elections. This notice authorizes the disclosure of voters' names and addresses to candidates. The regulations contained in 7 CFR part 7 only provide for the release of voter names. This does not give candidates the ability to communicate effectively with eligible voters. Both the final guidelines and the regulations will be revised to allow the release of voter names and addresses to candidates. All other eligible voters will only be entitled to review a list of the voter names.
The remaining changes to the final guidelines are minor changes of some of the dates in the guidelines.
Accordingly, USDA hereby issues Uniform Guidelines for Conducting FSA County Committee Elections, as follows:
Pursuant to section 10708 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, (Pub. L. 107-171)(7 U.S.C. 2279-1), the Secretary of Agriculture is issuing the following uniform guidelines for conducting elections to County Committees of the Farm Service Agency (FSA), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The purpose of such guidelines is to ensure that such County Committees are fairly representative of the agricultural producers covered in the relevant county or counties, including to ensure fair representation of socially-disadvantaged (SDA) farmers and ranchers on such committees, as well as to ensure public transparency and accountability of the election process.
Accordingly, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) shall conduct elections of members to FSA County Committees in accordance with the following guidelines.
A. FSA will ensure that outreach efforts are taken at the National, State, and local levels to ensure the fair representation of agricultural producers in a given county or area, including fair representation of SDA farmers and ranchers. Such efforts must be designed to increase the participation of eligible producers in the County Committee election process.
B. Each FSA county office will work with the State office to prepare an outreach plan, with specific steps that the county office will take on a year-long basis to increase the participation of producers generally and SDA producers specifically. A report detailing county office outreach efforts shall be submitted to the Office of the Deputy Administrator for Field Operations, FSA, 30 days prior to the end of the nomination period.
C. FSA county and State offices, with guidance from the FSA national office, will prepare a list of group contacts with which FSA will work on its outreach efforts. Such group contacts should include, as appropriate, land grant colleges, historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, tribal colleges, American Indian tribal organizations, community-based organizations, civic or charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, groups representing minorities and women, groups specifically representing the interest of SDA producers, and similar groups and individuals in the community.
D. FSA county and State offices will either develop partnerships with the group contacts or work with them on outreach efforts as appropriate to assist FSA in outreach efforts to SDA producers. County and State offices will also ensure that all groups contacts are provided with all appropriate election materials on a timely basis, including fact sheets, posters, brochures, and nominations forms.
E. FSA State Outreach Coordinators, State Communications Coordinators, Field Public Affairs Specialists, and other relevant State Office personnel shall work together in developing and implementing State communications plans for the election process.
F. FSA county offices shall ensure maximum publicity to remind and inform SDA farmers and ranchers of both the nomination and the election deadlines. FSA county offices shall ensure that all written election material is available in the county office, is prominently displayed and disseminated in the local area, and is provided to all group contacts. FSA shall ensure that all communications on the election process are available in languages other than English and in alternative formats when appropriate. County Committee election communications materials (nomination forms, fact sheets, posters, etc.) shall be posted on FSA's Web site at:
G. County offices shall ensure that information relating to elections is widely communicated, including the use of traditional and non-traditional media outlets. Media outlets should include television, radio, public service announcements, SDA organization newsletters, and other minority publications.
H. FSA county offices, as monitored by FSA State offices and State committees, shall actively locate and recruit eligible candidates identified as SDA farmers and ranchers as potential nominees for the County Committee elections using any reasonable means necessary. FSA shall work with leaders within the SDA community to identify eligible nominees. Community leaders who are eligible producers should be encouraged to become candidates for County Committee membership.
I. FSA State offices shall ensure that county offices are taking all appropriate outreach and communication efforts, including follow-up visits to county offices.
J. The FSA national office shall provide specific written guidance to State and county offices on County Committee election outreach and communication efforts. The national office shall also develop partnerships with appropriate national organizations to assist in outreach efforts. The national office shall work closely with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in developing and implementing outreach policy and activities.
1. County Committees shall continue to annually review and provide State Committees with proposed changes in local administrative area (LAA) boundaries within each FSA county office jurisdiction no later than April 1 of each year. County Committees shall ensure that any LAA changes are in effect no later than June 15 of each year. Each FSA county office shall post proposed changes in the LAA boundaries in the count office, as well as locally publicize such boundaries in a county office newsletter and local media to the extent practicable. The county office shall ensure that adequate time is available for comments by eligible voters to be received before the proposed LAA boundaries are considered for approval by the State Committee.
2. The FSA national office shall provide guidelines to County Committees on how to conduct the annual review of LAA boundaries. Such guidelines shall require the County Committees, in conducting the annual review of LAA boundaries, to determine whether redrawing the LAA boundaries or increasing the number of LAAs in a given area will assist in ensuring the fair representation of SDA producers in the area over which the committee has jurisdiction.
3. If a County Committee determines that LAA boundaries should be redrawn or that the number of LAAs should be changed, the FSA State Committee must approve any such determination before such a change is implemented.
4. Apart from the annual review of LAAs by County Committees, the FSA national office and State Committees shall conduct annual reviews of selected County Committees in order to determine whether redrawing the LAA boundaries or increasing the number of LAAs in a given area will assist in ensuring the fair representation of SDA producers in the area over which the committee has jurisdiction. The FSA national office and State Committees shall select such County Committees for annual reviews when they deem such reviews are appropriate based on evidence of possible under representation of SDAs on a given County Committee. Any proposed change in LAAs will be open to public comment before such change is implemented.
5. Each FSA office shall post the final LAA boundaries in the county office, as well as locally publicize such boundaries in a county office newsletter and local media.
1. County Committees shall maintain in the county office no later than June 15 of each year a current and updated list of eligible voters for each LAA conducting an election during the year. Any eligible voter may review a list of the names of eligible voters and the County Committees shall provide a list of names and addresses of eligible voters to any candidate requesting the list. County Committees shall maintain updated lists of eligible voters throughout the nomination and election period. Any person may contact a county office, either in person or in writing, in order to ascertain whether they are on the eligible voters list.
2. Any producer deemed to be ineligible to vote or who is not on the list of eligible voters who believes that he or she should be on the list may file a written challenge with the County Committee at any time. The County Committee must provide a response to the challenge within 15 calendar days. If the County Committee denies the challenge, the producer may appeal such denial to the State Committee.
3. The County Committee shall provide to the State Committee a report of any producer who the County Committee has specifically declared ineligible as a voter. The State Committee may overturn any ineligibility determination and direct that the County Committee add that producer to the list of eligible voters.
1. Nomination forms shall be directly mailed to every eligible voter no later than June 15 of each year. Such nomination forms may be mailed to eligible voters by including the form as part of the mailing of an FSA State or county newsletter mailed to producers.
2. Nomination forms shall be easily accessible to the public, including on the FSA Internet site year round. Nomination forms shall be readily available at FSA county offices and provided to the public upon request. The FSA State and county offices shall provide reproducible nomination forms to all of their group contacts.
3. The official nominating period for County Committee election candidacy shall run for 6 weeks after the official opening date.
4. Individuals desiring to file a nomination may nominate themselves or may nominate another eligible candidate. Nominees, whether self nominated, or nominated by another, must attest to their willingness to serve by signing the nomination form. Organizations representing SDA farmers and ranchers may nominate any eligible candidate.
1. If at least one nomination for candidacy is filed for an LAA for the County Committee election, the County Committee shall not add names to the slate of candidates after the close of the nomination period.
2. If no nominations are filed for a particular County Committee seat, FSA shall notify the Secretary of this fact, and the Secretary may nominate up to two individuals for the slate. If the Secretary chooses not to exercise this authority, or only nominates one individuals, the State Committee may nominate up to two individuals for the slate. If there are less than two nominees on the slate after the Secretary and the State Committee determine whether to make any nominations, the County Committee shall ensure that the slate is filled with two nominees.
3. Write-in candidates shall be accepted on ballots. The write-in candidate must meet eligibility criteria and attest to willingness to serve prior to being certified as a member or alternate member. Write-in candidates may serve as County Committee members or as alternates depending on the number of votes received.
4. Notwithstanding the above guidelines, the Secretary may nominate an eligible SDA producer to a slate regardless of whether any nominations have been filed. A nomination by the Secretary may include the current advisory for the County Committee.
1. Ballots shall be mailed to all eligible voters contained in the County Office records in the LAA conducting the election. Ballots shall be mailed no less than 4 weeks prior to the date of the election. Ballots will be printed and mailed to eligible voters from a central location. Ballots shall be provided to anyone requesting a ballot. Voter eligibility shall be determined prior to tabulating the votes. Ballots shall state the date, time, and location that votes will be counted.
2. County Committee elections will be held the first Monday of December each year, unless announced otherwise. Voters shall mail or deliver ballots to the FSA county office. Ballots, if mailed, must be postmarked by the election date or, if hand delivered, received by the election date. The county office shall provide a sealed ballot box into which ballots received shall be immediately deposited.
3. There shall be a 10 calendar day advance notice to the public of the date of the vote counting. Ballot opening and vote counting shall be fully open and readily accessible to the public. The seal on the ballot box shall not be broken prior to the public ballot counting.
4. When requested by a nominee, or when deemed necessary by the Secretary in a given county, voters shall mail ballots to the FSA State Office, rather than the county office. The FSA State office shall then deliver the ballots in a sealed box to the FSA county office. The seal on the ballot box from the State office shall not be broken except at the public ballot counting.
1. Any nominee shall have the right to challenge an election in writing, in person, or both within 15 calendar days after the results of the election are posted. Appeals to the election shall be made to the County Committee, which will provide a decision on the challenge to the appellant within 7 calendar days. The County Committee's decision may be appealed to the State Committee within 15 calendar days of receipt of the notice of the decision if the appellant desires.
2. In the event that an election is nullified as a result of an appeal or an error in the election process, a special election shall be conducted by the county office and closely monitored by the FSA State office. A special election shall be held according to the processes for a regular election, but with different dates.
1. No member of a County Committee may serve more than three consecutive three-year terms. A member will be considered to have served a term if that member served for a period of one and one-half years, or greater, of that term. This provision shall take effect with the 2005 election and will be applied retroactively to any prior terms served by those persons seeking office in the 2005 election.
A. Not later than 20 days after the date an election is held, each County Committee shall file an election report on the results of the election with the FSA State and national offices. The FSA national office shall provide specific guidance to county offices on the form and contents of this report. At a minimum, the report must include:
1. The number of eligible voters in the LAAs conducting the election;
2. The number of ballots cast by eligible voters (including the percentage of eligible voters that cast ballots);
3. The number of ballots disqualified in the election;
4. The percentage that the number of ballots disqualified is of the number of ballots received;
5. The number of nominees for each seat up for election;
6. The race, ethnicity, and gender of each nominee, and
7. The final election results (including the number of ballots received by each nominee).
B. After each election, the FSA national office shall compile the county election reports into a national election report to the Secretary. The national election report shall also be available to anyone requesting a paper copy of the report and also shall be posted to the FSA Web-site. the national election report shall include election data on SDA County Committee representation by county.
C. Not later than 90 days after the date an election is held, each County Committee shall file a separate written election reform report with the FSA State and national offices detailing its efforts to comply with the uniform guidelines and FSA regulations and directives on County Committee elections. This report must contain a detailed description of county office outreach efforts. The FSA national office shall provide specific guidance to the county offices on the form and contents of this report.
D. Based on the county election reports and the county election reform
A. USDA shall consider additional efforts to ensure such fair representation. Such additional efforts may include, but are not limited to, compliance reviews of selected counties by FSA's and USDA's Offices of Civil Rights; consideration of at-large seats or cumulative voting for certain County Committees; further centralization of the election process; and the issuance of provisions allowing for the appointment of an SDA voting member to particular committees pursuant to the 2002 Farm Bill.
A. The FSA national office shall ensure that it issues all appropriate regulations, instructions, directives, notices, and manuals to implement the terms of these uniform guidelines.
B. FSA shall institute a comprehensive monitoring process, including spot checks on selected counties, to ensure compliance with these guidelines and FSA regulations and directives on the County Committee process.
C. The FSA national office shall ensure that appropriate training of FSA county offices, including County Committees, is conducted on the implementation of these guidelines and on FSA's regulations and directives on the County Committee election process.
D. These uniform guidelines shall take effect immediately.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of availability and intent.
Notice is hereby given that the Federally owned invention, U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 10/973,274 entitled “Yeast Transformation System” is available for licensing and that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, intends to grant to Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) of Madison, Wisconsin, an exclusive license for this invention.
Comments must be received within ninety (90) calendar days of the date of publication of this Notice in the
Send comments to: Janet I. Stockhausen, USDA Forest Service, One Gifford Pinchot Drive, Madison, Wisconsin 53726-2398.
Janet I. Stockhausen of the USDA Forest Service at the Madison address given above; telephone: (608) 231-9502; fax: (608) 231-9508; or e-mail:
The Federal Government's patent rights to this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within ninety (90) days from the date of this published Notice, the Forest Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The Office of the Acting Under Secretary for Food Safety, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), United States Department of Health and Human Services, are sponsoring a public meeting on February 2, 2005, to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items that will be discussed at the Thirty-seventh Session of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex). The 37th Session of the CCFH will be held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 14-19 March, 2005. The Acting Under Secretary and FDA recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the agenda items that will be discussed at this forthcoming session of the CCFH.
The public meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 2, 2005 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The public meeting will be held in the Conference Room 1A001, Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD. Documents related to the 37th Session of CCFH will be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address:
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this notice. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
All comments submitted in response to this notice will be available for public inspection in the FSIS Docket Room at the address listed above between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through
U.S. Delegate, Dr. Robert Buchanan, CFSAN Senior Science Advisor and Director of the CFSAN Office of Science, DHHS, FDA, CFSAN, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, Maryland 20740. Phone (301) 436-2396; Fax (301) 436-2642, Email:
Syed Amjad Ali, International Issues Analyst, U.S. Codex Office, FSIS, Room 4861, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700. Phone (202) 205-7760; Fax (202) 720-3157. Persons requiring a sign language interpreter or other special accommodations should notify Dr. Rebecca Buchner, FDA at telephone (301) 436-1486, Fax (301) 436-2632.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) was established in 1962 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Codex is the major international standard-setting organization for protecting the health and economic interests of consumers and encouraging fair international trade in food. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to ensure that the world's food supply is sound, wholesome, free from adulteration, and correctly labeled. In the United States, USDA, FDA, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) manage and carry out U.S. Codex activities.
The Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) was established to draft basic provisions on food hygiene for all foods. The Committee is chaired by the United States of America.
The following items on the agenda for the 37th Session of CCFH will be discussed during the public meeting:
1. Matters referred by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and other Codex Committees.
2. Discussion paper on the management of the work of the Committee.
3. Proposed draft guidelines on the application of general principles of food hygiene to the [management] of
4. Proposed draft principles and guidelines for the conduct of microbiological risk management results.
5. Proposed draft guidelines for the validation of food hygiene control measures.
6. Proposed draft revision of the code of hygienic practice for egg products.
7. Discussion paper on guidelines for the application of the general principles of food hygiene to the risk based control of
8. Discussion paper on guidelines for risk management options for
9. Discussion paper on guidelines for the application of the general principles of food hygiene to the risk based control of Enterohemorragic
10. Risk profile of
11. Reports of the
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the United States Secretariat to the Meeting. Members of the public may access copies of these documents (see
At the February 2, 2005 public meeting, these agenda items will be described, discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate, for the 37th Session of the CCFH, Dr. Robert Buchanan (See
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that the public and in particular minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at
FSIS also will make copies of this
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Flathead County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Kalispell, Montana on February 15. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the meeting schedule for this year, develop project criteria, select new Chair and determine participation in the upcoming RAC meeting in Reno.
The meeting will be held from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Flathead County Commissioner's Office, Commissioner's Conference Room, 800 South Main, Kalispell, Montana 59901.
Kaaren Arnoux, Flathead National Forest, Administrative Assistant, (406) 758-5251.
The meeting is open to the public.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Sierra County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet on January 27, 2005, in Downieville, California. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss issues relating to implementing the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Payments to States) and the expenditure of Title II funds benefiting National Forest System lands on the Humboldt-Toiyabe, Plumas and Tahoe National Forests in Sierra County.
The meeting will be held Thursday, January 27, 2005, at 10 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Memorial Hall in Downieville, CA.
Ann Westling, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Tahoe National Forest, 631 Coyote St., Nevada City, CA 95959, (530) 478-6205, e-mail:
Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Welcome and announcements; (2) status of previously approved projects; and (3) review of and decisions on new projects proposals for current year. The meeting is open to the public and the public will have an opportunity to comment at the meeting. The meeting will be rescheduled if weather conditions warrant.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice.
The United States Grain Standards Act, as amended (Act), provides that official agency designations will end not later than triennially and may be renewed. The California Department of Food and Agriculture (California) is designated to provide official inspection and weighing services until December 31, 2005, according to the Act. California is also delegated to provide export services. California advised Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) that they will cease providing official services on May 1, 2005. Accordingly, GIPSA is announcing that California's delegation and designation will be canceled effective April 30, 2005. GIPSA is asking for applicants for domestic service in the California area.
Applications and comments must be postmarked or electronically dated on or before February 17, 2005.
We invite you to submit applications and comments on this notice. You may submit applications and comments by any of the following methods:
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver to Janet M. Hart, Chief, Review Branch, Compliance Division, GIPSA, USDA, Room 1647-S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250.
• Fax: Send by facsimile transmission to (202) 690-2755, attention: Janet M. Hart.
• E-mail: Send via electronic mail to
• Mail: Send hardcopy to Janet M. Hart, Chief, Review Branch, Compliance Division, GIPSA, USDA, STOP 3604, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3604.
Janet M. Hart at 202-720-8525, e-mail
This action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this action.
Section 7(f)(1) of the Act authorizes GIPSA' Administrator to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services. GIPSA designated California, headquarters in Sacramento, California, to provide official inspection services under the Act on January 1, 2003.
Section 7(g)(1) of the Act provides that designations of official agencies will end not later than triennially and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 7(f) of the Act. The designation of California ends on December 31, 2005, according to the Act. However, California asked GIPSA for a voluntary cancellation of their designation effective April 30, 2005. Accordingly, California's designation will cease effective April 30, 2005, and GIPSA is asking for applicants to provide official service.
Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, the entire State of California, except those export port locations within the State, is assigned to this official agency. For export service after April 30, 2005, contact Michael Johnson, Federal State Manager, telephone number 916-376-1930. Interested persons are hereby given the opportunity to apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under provisions of section 7(f) of the Act and section 800.196(d) of the regulations issued thereunder. Persons wishing to apply for designation should contact the Compliance Division at the address listed above for forms and information, or obtain applications at the GIPSA Web site,
Pub. L. 94-582, 90 Stat. 2867, as amended (7 U.S.C. 71
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of funding availability and solicitation of applications.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) announces the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 funding levels available for its Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) grant, combination loan-grant and loan programs. In addition, RUS announces the minimum and maximum amounts for DLT combination loan-grants and loans applicable for the fiscal year and the solicitation of combination loan-grant and loan applications.
You may submit completed applications for combination loan-grants and loans at any time.
Reminder of competitive grant application deadline: applications must be mailed, shipped or submitted electronically through Grants.gov no later than February 1, 2005, to be eligible for FY 2005 grant funding. The Notice of Solicitation of Applications published in the
You may obtain application guides and materials for all DLT programs via the Internet at the DLT Web site:
Submit completed paper applications for grants, combination loan-grants or loans to the Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 2845, STOP 1550, Washington, DC 20250-1550. Applications should be marked “Attention: Director, Advanced Services Division, Telecommunications Program.”
Submit electronic grant or combination loan-grant applications at
Orren E. Cameron, III, Director, Advanced Services Division, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, telephone: (202) 720-0413, fax: (202) 720-1051.
Reminder of competitive grant application deadline: applications must be mailed, shipped or submitted electronically through Grants.gov no later than February 1, 2005, to be eligible for FY 2005 grant funding. The Notice of Solicitation of Applications published in the
Distance learning and telemedicine loans and grants are specifically designed to provide access to education, training and health care resources for people in rural America. The Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) Program (administered by the DLT Branch of the Rural Utilities Service (RUS)) funds the use of advanced telecommunications technologies to help communities meet those needs.
The grants, which are awarded through competitive process, may be used to fund telecommunications, computer networks and related advanced technologies.
Applications for loans and combination loan-grants are not competitively scored. In addition to the items listed for grants, loans and combination loan-grants may be used to fund construction of necessary transmission facilities on a technology-neutral basis. Examples of such facilities include satellite uplinks, microwave towers and associated structures, T-1 lines, DS-3 lines, and other similar facilities. Loan funds may also be used to obtain mobile units and for some building construction. Please see 7 CFR 1703, Subparts D, E, F and G for specifics.
A.
1.
2.
3.
a. $44 million is available for combination loan-grants ($40 million in loans paired with $4 million in grants,
b. RUS will execute grant and loan documents appropriate to the project prior to any advance of funds with successful applicants.
4.
a.
b.
B.
A.
1. Only entities legally organized as one of the following are eligible for DLT financial assistance:
a. An incorporated organization or partnership,
b. An Indian tribe or tribal organization, as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450b (b) and (c),
c. A State or local unit of government,
d. A consortium, as defined in 7 CFR 1703.102, or
e. Other legal entity, including a private corporation organized on a for-profit or not-for profit basis.
2. Individuals are not eligible for DLT financial assistance directly.
3. Electric and telecommunications borrowers under the Rural
B.
1. The DLT Program is designed to flow the benefits of distance learning and telemedicine to residents of rural America (see 7 CFR 1703.103(a)(2)). Therefore, in order to be eligible, applicants must propose to use the financial assistance to:
a. Operate a rural community facility; or
b. Deliver distance learning or telemedicine services to entities that operate a rural community facility or to residents of rural areas, at rates calculated to ensure that the benefit of the financial assistance is passed through to such entities or to residents of rural areas.
2. If a loan applicant is a telecommunications or electric borrower under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901-950aa,
3. All projects that applicants propose to fund with RUS financial assistance must meet a minimum rurality threshold, to ensure that benefits from the projects flow to rural residents. The minimum eligibility score is 20 points. Please see 7 CFR 1703.126(a)(2) for an explanation of the rurality scoring and eligibility criterion.
a. Each application must apply the following criteria to each of its end-user sites, and hubs that are also proposed as end-user sites, in order to determine a rurality score.
b. The rurality score is the average of all end-user sites' rurality scores.
4. Projects located in areas covered by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3501
C.
A.
1. The Internet:
2. The DLT Program of RUS for paper copies of these materials: (202) 720-0413.
B.
1. Detailed information on each item in the table in paragraph IV.B.6 of this notice can be found in the sections of the DLT Program regulation listed in the table, and the DLT application guide. Applicants are strongly encouraged to read and apply both the regulation and the application guide.
a. When the table refers to a narrative, it means a written statement, description or other written material prepared by the applicant, for which no form exists. RUS recognizes that each project is unique and requests narratives of varying complexity to allow applicants to fully explain their request for financial assistance.
b. When documentation is requested, it means letters, certifications, legal documents or other third party documentation that provide evidence that the applicant meets the listed requirement. For example, evidence of legal existence is sometimes proven by applicants who submit articles of incorporation. This example is not intended to limit the types of documentation that may be submitted to fulfill a requirement. DLT program regulations and the application guide provide specific guidance on each of the items in the table.
2. The DLT application guide and ancillary materials provide all necessary forms and sample worksheets.
3. While the table in paragraph IV.B.6 of this notice includes all items of a completed application for each program, RUS may ask for additional or clarifying information if the submitted item(s) do not fully address a criterion or other provision. RUS will communicate with applicants if the need for additional information arises.
4. Submit the required application items in the listed order.
5. DUNS Number. As required by the OMB, all applicants for combination loan-grants must supply a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number when applying. The Standard Form 424 (SF-424) contains a field for you to use when supplying your DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number costs nothing and requires a short telephone call to Dun and Bradstreet. Please see the DLT Web site or Grants.gov for more information on how to obtain a DUNS number or how to verify your organization's number.
C.
1. Applications submitted on paper:
a. Submit the original application and two (2) copies to RUS.
b. Submit one (1) additional copy to the State government point of contact (if one has been designated) at the same time as you submit the application to RUS. See
2. Electronically submitted applications (combination loan-grants):
a. The additional paper copies for RUS specified in 7 CFR 1703.136(b) are not necessary if you submit the application electronically through Grants.gov.
b. Submit one (1) copy to the State government point of contact (if one has been designated) at the same time as you submit the application to RUS. See
D.
1. Submitting applications on paper.
a. Address paper applications for combination loan-grants or loans to the Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 2845, STOP 1550, Washington, DC 20250-1550. Applications should be marked “Attention: Director, Advanced Services Division, Telecommunications Program.”
b. Packages arriving at the Department of Agriculture via the USPS are irradiated, which can damage the contents. RUS encourages applicants to consider the impact of this procedure in selecting their application delivery method.
2. Electronically submitted applications (applies only to combination loan-grants).
a. Applications will not be accepted via facsimile machine transmission or electronic mail.
b. Electronic applications for combination loan-grants will be accepted if submitted through the Federal government's Grants.gov initiative at
c. How to use Grants.gov:
(i) Navigate your Web browser to
(ii) Follow the instructions on that Web site to find grant or combination loan-grant information.
(iii) Download a copy of an application package.
(iv) Complete the package off-line.
(v) Upload and submit the application via the Grants.gov Web site.
d. Grants.gov contains full instructions on all required passwords, credentialing and software.
e. If a system problem occurs or you have technical difficulties with an electronic application, please use the customer support resources available at the Grants.gov Web site.
f. Central Contractor Registry. In addition to the DUNS number now required of all grant applicants, submitting an application through Grants.gov requires that you list your organization in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR). Setting up a CCR listing (a one-time procedure with annual updates) takes up to five business days, so RUS strongly recommends that you obtain your organization's DUNS number and CCR listing well in advance of the deadline specified in this notice.
g. Credentialing and authorization of applicants. Grants.gov will also require some one-time credentialing and online authentication procedures. These procedures may take several business days to complete, further emphasizing the need for early action to complete the sign-up, credentialing and authorization procedures at Grants.gov before you submit an application at that Web site.
1. Reminder of competitive grant application deadline: applications must be mailed, shipped or submitted electronically through Grants.gov no later than February 1, 2005, to be eligible for FY 2005 grant funding. The Notice of Solicitation of Applications published in the
2. Applications for FY 2005 combination loan-grants (paper or electronic) and loans (paper only) may be submitted at any time.
F.
G.
1. Eligible purposes.
a. End-user sites may receive financial assistance; hub sites (rural or non-rural) may also receive financial assistance if they are necessary to provide DLT services to end-user sites. Please see 7 CFR 1703.101(h).
b. To fulfill the policy goals laid out for the DLT Program in 7 CFR 1703.101, the following table lists purposes for financial assistance and whether each purpose is eligible for the assistance. Please consult the application guide and the regulations (7 CFR 1703.102 for definitions, in combination with the portions of the regulation cited in the table for each type of financial assistance) for detailed requirements for the items in the table.
2. Eligible Equipment & Facilities. Please see 7 CFR 1703.102 for definitions of eligible equipment, eligible facilities and telecommunications transmission facilities as used in the table above.
A.
B.
C.
1. RUS evaluates applications' financial feasibility using the following information. Please see paragraph IV.B.6 of this of this notice for the items that constitute a completed combination loan-grant or loan application. Also, see 7 CFR part 1703 subpart F for combination loan-grants and 7 CFR part 1703 subpart G for loans:
a. Applicant's financial ability to compete the project;
b. Project feasibility;
c. Applicant's financial information;
d. Project sustainability;
e. Ability to repay the loan portion of a combination loan-grant, including revenue sources;
f. Collateral for which the applicant has perfected a security interest; and
g. Adequate security for a loan or the loan portion of a combination loan-grant.
2. RUS also evaluates the following project and application characteristics:
a. Services to be provided by the project.
b. Project cost.
c. Project design.
d. Rurality of the proposed service area. Please see paragraph III.B.3 of this Notice for information on determining rurality.
e. Other characteristics.
D.
A.
RUS recognizes that each funded project is unique, and therefore may attach conditions to different projects' award documents.
1. RUS generally sends a letter defining the characteristics of a loan (or the loan portion of a combination loan-grant) such as the term, interest rate and any conditions on the loan. An applicant must communicate agreement with the characteristics of the loan to RUS before a loan or combination loan-grant moves into the approval process.
2. After receiving the applicant's agreement on the loan characteristics, RUS supplies an approval letter to the applicant. Loan documents (and a grant agreement, if applicable) are then sent by RUS. The applicant has 120 days to sign and return the documents, along with any additional material required by the loan or grant documents.
B.
C.
1. Performance reporting. All recipients of DLT financial assistance must provide annual performance activity reports to RUS until the project is complete and the funds are expended. A final performance report is also required; the final report may serve as the last annual report. The final report must include an evaluation of the success of the project in meeting DLT Program objectives. See 7 CFR 1703.107.
2. Financial reporting. All recipients of DLT financial assistance must provide an annual audit, beginning with the first year a portion of the financial assistance is expended. Audits are governed by United States Department of Agriculture audit regulations. Please see 7 CFR 1703.108.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Office of the Secretary, Commerce.
General notice announcing population estimates.
This notice announces the voting age population estimates, as of July 1, 2004, for each state and the District of Columbia. We are giving this notice in accordance with the 1976 amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act, Title 2, United States Code, Section 441a(e).
John F. Long, Chief, Population Division, Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, Room 2011, Federal Building 3, Washington, DC 20233, telephone (301) 763-2071.
Under the requirements of the 1976 amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act, Title 2, United States Code, Section 441a(e), I hereby give notice that the estimates of the voting age population for July 1, 2004, for each state and the District of Columbia are as shown in the following table.
I have certified these counts to the Federal Election Commission.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Port of Portland, grantee of FTZ 45, requesting special-purpose subzone status for the inkjet cartridge manufacturing facility of Epson Portland Inc. (EPI), in Hillsboro, Oregon. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on January 4, 2005.
The EPI facility (1 building, 184,492 sq. ft. on 16.61 acres) is located at 3950 Aloclek Place, Hillsboro, Oregon. The EPI plant (455 employees) is used for warehousing and manufacturing of inkjet cartridges (which includes the production of plastic injection molded cartridge parts); activities which EPI is proposing to perform under FTZ procedures.
Foreign-sourced materials will account for some 50 to 55 percent of total materials used in production, and may include items from the following general categories: ink (HTSUS 3215.11 and 3215.19), cleaning liquid for printers (3402.19), polypropylene colorant (3901.20), polypropylene resins (3902.30), labels and label tape (3919.90), sealing film (3920.10), tape (3920.62), silicone sheet (3920.99), urethane foam (3921.13), poly bags (3923.21), seals (4016.93), vent film (5911.10), seals/valves/springs (7320.10), nylon filters (8421.19), and ink degassing modules (8421.21).
Zone procedures would exempt EPI from Customs duty payments on foreign materials used in production for export. Some 60 percent of the plant's shipments are currently exported. On domestic sales, the company would be able to choose the duty rates that apply to the finished products (HTSUS 8473.30, duty-free), rather than the duty rates that would otherwise apply to the foreign-sourced materials noted above (duty-free to 6.5%, weighted average—3.4%). The application indicates that the savings from zone procedures will help improve the plant's international competitiveness.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at one of the following addresses:
The closing period for their receipt is March 21, 2005. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to April 4, 2005).
A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at address Number 1 listed above, and at the U.S. Department of Commerce Export Assistance Center, One World Trade Center, 121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 242, Portland, Oregon 97204.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
January 18, 2005.
Jeff Pedersen or Drew Jackson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-2769 or (202) 482-4406, respectively.
On August 30, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the
Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that the Department will rescind an administrative review if the party that requested the review withdraws its request for review within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review, or withdraws its request at a later date if the Department determines that it is reasonable to extend the time limit for withdrawing the request. On September 24, 2004, November 9, 2004, and November 23, 2004, the petitioners, Garware, and Jindal, respectively, submitted letters withdrawing their requests that the Department conduct an administrative review covering the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. Accordingly, the Department is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PET Film from India covering the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004, because all the parties that requested administrative reviews have withdrawn their requests within the 90-day period. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection within 15 days of publication of this notice.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with section 351.305(a)(3) of the Department's regulations. Timely written notification of the return or 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 sanctionable violation.
This notice is in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and section 351.213(d)(4) of the Department's regulations.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
January 18, 2005.
Tipten Troidl or Eric Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: (202) 482-2786.
Section 702 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (as amended) (“the Act”) requires the Department to determine, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, whether any foreign government is providing a subsidy with respect to any article of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty, as defined in section 702(h) of the Act, and to publish an annual list and quarterly updates of the type and amount of those subsidies. We hereby provide the Department's annual list of subsidies on articles of cheese that were imported during the period October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004.
The Department has developed, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, information on subsidies (as defined in section 702(h) of the Act) being provided either directly or indirectly by foreign governments on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty. The appendix to this notice lists the country, the subsidy program or programs, and the gross and net amounts of each subsidy for which information is currently available. The Department will incorporate additional programs which are found to constitute subsidies, and additional information on the subsidy programs listed, as the information is developed.
The Department encourages any person having information on foreign government subsidy programs which benefit articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty to submit such information in writing to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.
This determination and notice are in accordance with section 702(a) of the Act.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
February 11, 2005.
9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, Room 3407.
The Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee (ETTAC) will hold a plenary meeting on February 11, 2005, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, in Room 3407. The ETTAC will discuss Tsunami Relief efforts and how environmental technologies companies can assist with the efforts, as well as continuing discussions on trade liberalization in environmental goods and services. The meeting is open to the public and time will be permitted for public comment.
Written comments concerning ETTAC affairs are welcome anytime before or after the meeting. Minutes will be available within 30 days of this meeting.
The ETTAC is mandated by Public Law 103-392. It was created to advise the U.S. government on environmental trade policies and programs, and to help it to focus its resources on increasing the exports of the U.S. environmental industry. ETTAC operates as an advisory committee to the Secretary of
For further information phone Joseph Ayoub, Office of Environmental Technologies Industries (ETI), International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482-0313 or 5225. This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to OEEI at (202) 482-5225.
A meeting of the Exporters’ Textile Advisory Committee will be held in Los Angeles, CA at 1:00 pm on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 at the California Fashion Association, 444 South Flower Street, 34th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, phone: (213) 688-6288.
The Committee provides advice and guidance to Department officials on the identification and surmounting of barriers to the expansion of textile exports, and on methods of encouraging textile firms to participate in export expansion.
The Committee functions solely as an advisory body in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The meeting will be open to the public with a limited number of seats available. For further information or copies of the minutes, contact Rachel Alarid, telephone: (202) 482-5154.
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice; correction.
OCRM published a document in the
Masi Okasaki, (301) 713-3155, extension 185.
In the
Submit suggestions or comments on the impacts or issues that should be addressed in the NEPA document and if an EIS should be prepared by attending any of the above meetings or provide written comments on or before April 1, 2005.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability ; request for comment.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received applications for direct take of listed species from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the Northwest Fisheries Science Center pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The Permit applications are for the direct take of listed Snake River sockeye salmon, associated with the operation of a captive propagation program. The proposed permits will renew and replace permits 1120 and 1148. The duration of the new permits is approximately 5 years, expiring on December 31, 2009. This document serves to notify the public of the availability for comment of the permit applications and of the associated draft EA before a final decision on whether to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact is made by NMFS. All comments received will become part of the public record and will be available for review pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA.
Written comments on the draft EA must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written comments and requests for copies of the applications and draft EA should be addressed to Herb Pollard, Salmon Recovery Division, 10095 W. Emerald, Boise, ID 83704, or faxed to (208) 378-5699. Comments on this draft EA may be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is
Herb Pollard, Boise, Idaho, at phone number (208) 378-5614 or e-mail:
This notice is relevant to the following species and evolutionarily significant unit (ESU):
Sockeye salmon (
NEPA requires Federal agencies to conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed actions to determine if the actions may affect the human environment. NMFS expects to take action on two ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) submittals received from the applicants. Therefore, the Service is seeking public input on the scope of the required NEPA analysis, including the range of reasonable alternatives and associated impacts of any alternatives.
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the Northwest Fisheries Science Center have each submitted an application for a section 10(a)(1)(A) research/enhancement permit for continued operation of the Redfish Lake Sockeye Salmon Captive Propagation program. The two permits would authorize activities that are part of the same project.
The objectives of the proposal are to increase the abundance of the listed population through artificial propagation and to serve as a safety net to prevent extinction of the Snake River Sockeye Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), which is listed as endangered under the ESA. The artificial propagation action would include maintenance of the Snake River sockeye salmon broodstock in captivity in several locations, collection and spawning of adult sockeye salmon returning to the Snake River basin, rearing of the juveniles, and use of the juvenile and adult fish in carefully designed release strategies that include captive propagation, smolt releases, and natural spawning releases. The action would include conditions to minimize adverse effects on the ESU, including use of prudent fish husbandry practices and standard hatchery protocols to ensure health and survival of the program fish, selection of eggs and juveniles in a manner designed to represent to the greatest extent possible the entire genetic spectrum of the founding population, and the conduct of spawning ground surveys to estimate natural spawning escapement and to determine the affects of captive-reared fish on spawner distribution and behavior.
The EA package includes a draft EA evaluating whether the potential effects of issuing the new take permits is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, with the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. Three Federal action alternatives have been analyzed in the draft EA: (1) The no action alternative; (2) issue a permit with conditions; and (3) issue a permit without conditions. NEPA requires Federal agencies to conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed action to determine if the action may affect the human environment. NMFS expects to take action on the ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) submittals received from the applicants. Therefore, NMFS is seeking public input on the scope of the required NEPA analysis, including the range of reasonable alternatives and associated impacts of any alternatives. The general effects on the environment considered include the impacts on the physical, biological, and socioeconomic environments of the Snake River Basin, particularly in the Stanley Basin lakes in which the program is located.
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA and the NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6). NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of the NEPA regulations and section 10(a) of the ESA. If it is determined that the requirements are met, the permits will be issued for take of ESA-listed anadromous salmonids under the jurisdiction of NMFS. The final NEPA and permit determinations will not be completed until after the end of the 30-day comment period, and will fully consider all public comments received during the comment period. NMFS will publish a record of its final action in the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before February 17, 2005.
Lawrence B. Patent, Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418-5439; FAX: (202) 418-5536; e-mail:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the CFTC's regulations were published on December 30, 1981.
Send comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the addresses listed below. Please refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0026 in any correspondence.
Lawrence B. Patent, Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581 and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for CFTC, 725 17th Street, Washington, DC 20503.
Department of Defense.
Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Defense Science Board Task Force on Munitions System Reliability will meet in closed session on January 14, 2005, at SAIC, 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA, and February 2-4, 2005, at Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake, CA. This Task Force will review the efforts thus far to improve the reliability of munitions systems and identify additional steps to be taken to reduce the amount of unexploded ordnance resulting from munitions failures. The Task Force will: Conduct a methodologically sound assessment of the failure rates of U.S. munitions in actual combat use; review ongoing efforts to reduce the amount of unexploded ordnance resulting from munitions systems failures, and evaluate whether there are ways to improve or accelerate these efforts; and identify other feasible measures the U.S. can take to reduce the threat that failed munitions pose to friendly forces and noncombatants.
The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will: conduct a methodologically sound assessment of the failure rates of U.S. munitions in actual combat use; review ongoing efforts to reduce the amount of unexploded ordnance resulting from munitions systems failures, and evaluate whether there are ways to improve or accelerate these efforts; and identify other feasible measures the U.S. can take to reduce the threat that failed munitions pose to friendly forces and noncombatants.
In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, these meetings will be closed to the public.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Public Law 102-484 section 2834, as amended by Public Law 104-106 section 2867, the Department of the Army and the California State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) hereby give notice of intent to prepare a joint Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/EIR) for the Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project (HWRP), Marin County, California to consider alternative methods to transfer dredged material collected from various navigational dredging projects within San Francisco Bay to the HWRP site for beneficial re-use in the construction of tidal and seasonal wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the lead agency for this project under NEPA. The SCC is the lead agency for this project under CEQA.
A pubic scoping meeting will be held to solicit comments on the environmental scope of the project and the appropriate scope of the SEIS/EIR.
The public scoping meeting will be held on the 26th of January 2005 from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Bay Model, 2100 Bridgeway, Sausalito, Marin County, CA.
Questions about the proposed action and SEIS/EIR can be answered by: Eric Jolliffe, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, 333 Market St., 7th floor, San Francisco, CA 94105,
The HWRP is located on the former Hamilton Army Airfield approximately 25 miles north of San Francisco in Marin County, CA. The original EIS/EIR was prepared for the HWRP in 1998. This project would involve the beneficial re-use of an estimated 10.6 million cubic yards (MCY) of dredged material to restore the 988-acre site to tidal and seasonal wetland, which is critical habitat for several local endangered species. Site preparation construction required prior to dredged material placement has begun. The first SEIS/EIR, which described expanding the project to include the Bel Marin Keys V (BMK-V) property, was completed in 2003. Pending congressional authorization, the adjacent BMK-V site of approximately 1610 acres will be restored as a part of the HWRP using approximately 14 MCY of additional dredged material. The present notice announces the intent to prepare a second SEIS/EIR on the HWRP, which evaluates alternative methods for delivering dredged material
1.
2.
3.
a. No Action: The original hydraulic off-loader. A hydraulic off-loader facility moored approximately 5 miles from HWRP in San Pablo Bay would pump dredged material as slurry through a submerged pipeline to the HWRP site. The facility would operate for 6 to 9 months of the year. Traditional aquatic disposal of dredged material at in-bay or offshore disposal sites would be performed during periods when an off-loader is not operational, the wetland construction site is not available for material placement, or for dredging projects with incompatible equipment or scheduling requirements. An off-loader facility will require an operational footprint of between 12 and 16 acres within San Pablo Bay.
b. Confined in-bay aquatic transfer facility. An enclosed temporary dredged material storage basin near or coincident with the authorized disposal area SF-10, approximately 5 miles offshore of the Hamilton site in San Pablo Bay, would allow a greater number of dredging projects to contribute to wetland restoration efforts. An aquatic transfer facility would likely be used in lieu of open water sites SF-10 and SF-9 and other in-bay disposal areas during the 13-19 year construction of the HWRP. A confined transfer facility would require between 30 to 40 acres in San Pablo Bay, as opposed to the 149 acres that SF-9 and SF-10 now occupy.
c. Semi-confined in-bay aquatic transfer facility. A semi-confined temporary in-bay aquatic transfer facility would function similarly to the confined basin, but would not be entirely enclosed within a structural confinement. The general size of the facility is anticipated to be the same as the completely confined alternative.
d. Unconfined in-bay aquatic transfer facility. An unconfined temporary dredged material storage basin would function as the confined basin but would have no containment structure. An unconfined basin would likely require a footprint of 40 to 50 acres.
e. Combination of off-loader and aquatic transfer basin methods.
4.
5.
6.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of open meeting.
In accordance with 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the forthcoming meeting. The meeting is open to the public.
Mr. Norman Edwards, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC 20314-1000; phone: 202-761-1934.
The Board advises the Chief of Engineers on environmental policy, identification and resolution of environmental issues and missions, and addressing challenges, problems and opportunities in an environmentally sustainable manner. The EAB will be meeting with the current Chief of Engineers for the first time. The public meeting will focus on general issues of national significance rather than on individual project or region related topics. Time will be provided for public comment. Each speaker will be limited to no more than three minutes in order to accommodate as many people as possible within the limited time available.
Department of Education.
The Leader, Information Management Case Services Team, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 17, 2005.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Carolyn Lovett, Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or faxed to (202) 395-6974.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Information Management Case Services Team, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested,
Responses: 25,326. Burden Hours: 6,331.
Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at her e-mail address
Notice of public meeting to seek comments and suggestions on regulatory issues under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended by the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004.
The Secretary announces plans to hold the second of a series of public meetings to seek comments and suggestions from the public prior to developing and publishing proposed regulations to implement programs under the recently revised Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Thursday, February 3, 2005, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
The Ohio State University, School of Education, 384 Arps Hall, 1945 North High Street, Columbus, Ohio 43210.
Troy R. Justeen. Telephone: (202) 245-7468.
On December 3, 2004, the President signed into law Public Law 108-446, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, amending the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Copies of the new law may be obtained at the following Web site:
Enactment of the new law provides an opportunity to consider improvements in the regulations implementing the IDEA (including both formula and discretionary grant programs) that would strengthen the Federal effort to ensure every child with a disability has available a free appropriate public education that—(1) Is of high quality, and (2) is designed to achieve the high standards reflected in the No Child Left Behind Act and regulations.
The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services will be holding a series of public meetings during the first few months of calendar year 2005 to seek input and suggestions for developing regulations, as needed, based on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004.
This notice provides specific information about the second of these meetings, scheduled for Columbus, OH (
In subsequent
Individuals who need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (
United States Election Assistance Commission.
Notice of public meeting agenda.
Thursday, January 27, 2005, 10 a.m.-12 noon.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1225 New York Ave., NW., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005, (Metro Stop: Metro Center).
The Commission will receive reports on the following: Updates on Title II Requirements Payments. The Commission will receive presentations on the following: State Reports on HAVA Expenditures; Single Audits of HAVA Expenditures; Other Audit Authority under HAVA. The Commission will consider whether to institute a special audit concerning California's use of HAVA funds.
Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (202) 566-3100.
Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of proposed power rates.
The Western Area Power Administration (Western) is proposing adjustments to the Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects (SLCA/IP) firm power rates. The SLCA/IP consists of the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP), Collbran, and Rio Grande projects, which were integrated for marketing and ratemaking purposes on October 1, 1987, and two participating projects of the CRSP that have power facilities, the Dolores and Seedskadee projects. The current rates, under Rate Schedule SLIP-F7 expire September 30, 2007, but are not sufficient to meet the SLCA/IP revenue requirements. The proposed rates will provide sufficient revenue to pay all annual costs, including operation and maintenance, and replacements (OM&R), interest expenses, and the required repayment of investment within the allowable period. Western will prepare a brochure that provides detailed information on the rates to all interested parties. The proposed rates, under Rate Schedule SLIP-F8, are scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 2005. Publication of this
The consultation and comment period begins today and will end April 18, 2005. Western will present a detailed explanation of the proposed rates at a public information forum to be held on February 23, 2005, at 1:30 p.m. Western will accept oral and written comments at a public comment forum to be held on March 30, 2005, at 1:30 p.m. Western will accept written comments any time during the consultation and comment period.
Send written comments to Bradley S. Warren, CRSP Manager, Colorado River Storage Project Management Center, Western Area Power Administration, PO Box 11606, Salt Lake City, UT 84147-0606, (801) 524-5493, e-mail
Ms. Carol A. Loftin, Rates Manager, Colorado River Storage Project, Western Area Power Administration, PO Box 11606, Salt Lake City, UT 84147-0606, (801) 524-6380, e-mail
The proposed rates for SLCA/IP firm power are designed to return an annual amount of revenue to meet the repayment of power investment, payment of interest, purchased power, OM&R expenses, and the repayment of irrigation assistance costs as required by law.
The Secretary of Energy approved Rate Schedule SLIP-F7 for firm power service on September 12, 2002 (Rate Order No. WAPA-99, 67 FR 60656, September 26, 2002), and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) confirmed and approved the rate schedules on November 14, 2003, under FERC Docket No. EF02-5171-000. Rate Schedule SLIP-F7 became effective on October 1, 2002, for a 5-year period ending September 30, 2007. Under Rate Schedule SLIP-F7, the energy rate is 9.5 mills per kilowatthour (mills/kWh), and the capacity rate is $4.04 per kilowattmonth (kWmonth). The composite rate is 20.72 mills/kWh.
The proposed rate is expected to become effective October 1, 2005. The proposed rate revenue requirements are based on the FY 2006 work plans for Western and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). These work plans form the bases for the FY 2006 Congressional budgets for the two agencies. The most current work plans will be included in the Rate Order submission. The FY 2003 historical data are the latest available for the rate proposal. The final ratesetting study will include FY 2004 data as it becomes available.
The rate increase results primarily from the decrease in the customer contract energy commitments that were reduced on October 1, 2004, increased purchased power costs from the continued drought in the Upper Colorado River region, and an increase in deficits. The increase is offset by an increase in projected nonrate related revenues amounting to about $4.5 million per year (most of which are from the CRSP merchant function activities), the sale of CRSP transmission, and ancillary services.
Traditionally, Western used Reclamation's estimates of “Average Hydrology” to determine hydro generation and purchase power costs.
In setting its firm power rate, Western forecasts generation available from the SLCA/IP units and projects the firming energy purchase expense over the ratesetting period. These firming expense projections are included in the annual revenue requirement of the firm power rate. Over the last several years, both hydropower generation and power prices have been highly volatile. This volatility has caused actual purchased power expenses to be significantly higher than forecast and has resulted in cost recovery issues for the SLCA/IP. To adequately recover expenses in times of financial hardship, Western proposes to implement a cost recovery mechanism.
The CRC is an additional charge on all delivered Sustainable Hydropower energy deliveries (long-term SLCA/IP hydro capacity with energy) that may, at times, be applicable when cost recovery is at risk due to low hydropower generation and high power prices. The conditions that would trigger the CRC, as well as a more detailed formula methodology of how and when the CRC would apply, will be discussed in further detail in the Rate Brochure and at the Information Forum.
Since the proposed rates constitute a major rate adjustment as defined by 10 CFR part 903, Western will hold both a public information forum and a public comment forum. After reviewing public comments and making possible amendments or adjustments to its proposed rates, Western will recommend the Deputy Secretary of Energy approve the proposed rates on an interim basis.
Western is establishing firm electric service rates for SLCA/IP under the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152); the Reclamation Act of 1902 (ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388), as amended and supplemented by subsequent laws, particularly section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)); and other acts that specifically apply to the projects involved.
By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00, effective December 6, 2001, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The authority to develop power and transmission rates to Western's Administrator; (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand, or to disapprove such rates to the Commission. Existing Department of Energy (DOE) procedures for public participation in power rate adjustments (10 CFR part 903) were published on September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37835).
All brochures, studies, comments, letters, memorandums, or other documents that Western initiates or uses to develop the proposed rates are available for inspection and copying at the CRSP Management Center, located at 150 Social Hall Avenue, Suite 300, Salt Lake City, Utah. Many of these documents and supporting information are also available on its Web site under the “FY 2006 SLCA/IP Rate Adjustment” section located at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321,
Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required.
Western has determined that this rule is exempt from congressional notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services and involves matters of procedure.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has notified EPA that it has adopted four sets of amendments to the California ZEV regulation. By letter dated September 23, 2004, CARB requested that EPA confirm that its aggregated amendments from the four rulemakings as they affect model years 2003-2006 are within the scope of previous waivers of preemption issued by EPA. CARB also requests that EPA issue a new waiver of preemption for the aggregated amendments to the extent they are applicable to the 2007 and subsequent model years. This notice announces that EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing concerning California's requests and that EPA is accepting written comment on the requests.
EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing concerning CARB's requests on February 17, 2005, beginning at 10 a.m. EPA will hold a hearing only if a party notifies EPA by February 7, 2005, expressing its interest in presenting oral testimony. By February 14, 2005, any person who plans to attend the hearing should call David Dickinson at (202) 343-9256 to learn if a hearing will be held. If EPA does not receive a request for a public hearing, then EPA will not hold a hearing, and instead consider CARB's requests based on written submissions to the docket. Any party may submit written comments by March 29, 2005.
EPA will make available for public inspection at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center materials submitted by CARB, written comments received from interested parties, in addition to any testimony given at the public hearing. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation 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 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 Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1743. The reference number for this docket is OAR-2004-0437. Parties wishing to present oral testimony at the public hearing should provide written notice to David Dickinson at the address noted below. If EPA receives a request for a public hearing, EPA will hold the public hearing at 1310 L St, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
EPA will make available an electronic copy of this Notice on the Office of Transportation and Air Quality's (OTAQ's) home page (
Please note that due to differences between the software used to develop the documents and the software into which the documents may be downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc., may occur. Parties wishing to present oral testimony at the public hearing should provide written notice to David Dickinson at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., (6405J), Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 343-9256.
David Dickinson, Certification and Compliance Division (6405J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 343-9256, Fax: (202) 343-2804, e-mail address:
Within CARB's 1990-1991 California Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV I) rulemaking 10 percent of the passenger cars and LDT1s
In 2001-2002 CARB adopted amendments that maintained certain provisions of the ZEV program for 2003 and subsequent model years and also included additional ZEV credit provisions (“2001 Amendments”). Although CARB initially requested that EPA confirm that these amendments were within the scope of previous waivers of preemption, CARB subsequently withdrew its request. By today's action EPA is considering portions of the 2001 amendments that were not eliminated by CARB's 2003 ZEV amendments. CARB's 2003 ZEV amendments delay the start of the percentage ZEV requirements from model year 2003 to model year 2005 and make other changes; these amendments are also considered by today's action. In addition, CARB's 2002 amendments regarding conductive chargers on 2006 and subsequent model year battery electric vehicles are considered by today's action. Please see CARB's
Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. 7543(a), provides:
No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part. No state shall require certification, inspection or any other approval relating to the control of emission from any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.
Section 209(b)(1) of the Act requires the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, to waive application of the prohibitions of section 209(a) for any state that has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966, if the state determines that the state standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. California is the only state that is qualified to seek and receive a waiver under section 209(b). The Administrator must grant a waiver unless he finds that (A) the determination of the state is arbitrary and capricious, (B) the state does not need the state standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or (C) the state standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of the Act.
When EPA receives new waiver requests from CARB, EPA traditionally publishes a notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment and then publishes a decision in the
Although CARB has submitted a within the scope waiver request for its ZEV amendments as applied to the 2003-2006 model years, EPA invites comment on the following issues: (1) Whether California's ZEV program amendments for the 2003-2006 model years and the ZEV program amendments for 2007 and subsequent model years should be considered together or separately; (2) whether California's 2003-2006 ZEV program amendments, within the context of a within the scope analysis (a) undermine California's previous determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as comparable Federal standards, (b) affect the consistency of California's requirements with section 202(a) of the Act, and (c) raise new issues affecting EPA's previous waiver determinations. Please also provide comment that if CARB's 2003-2006 ZEV program amendments were not found to be within the scope of previous waivers and instead required a full waiver analysis, whether (a) CARB's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards is arbitrary and capricious, (b) California needs separate standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and (c) California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are consistent with section 202(a) of the Act.
EPA also invites comment on CARB's 2007 and subsequent model year ZEV program amendments, and whether (a) CARB's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards is arbitrary and capricious, (b) California needs separate standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and (c) California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are consistent with section 202(a) of the Act.
In recognition that public hearings are designed to give interested parties an opportunity to participate in this proceeding, there are no adverse parties as such. Statements by participants will not be subject to cross-examination by other participants without special approval by the presiding officer. The presiding officer is authorized to strike from the record statements that he or she deems irrelevant or repetitious and to impose reasonable time limits on the duration of the statement of any participant.
If a hearing is held, the Agency will make a verbatim record of the proceedings. Interested parties may arrange with the reporter at the hearing to obtain a copy of the transcript at their own expense. Regardless of whether a public hearing is held, EPA will keep the record open until March 29, 2005. Upon expiration of the comment period, the Administrator will render a decision on CARB's request based on the record of the public hearing, if any, relevant written submissions, and other information that he deems pertinent. All information will be available for inspection at EPA Air Docket. (Docket No. OAR-2004-0437).
EPA requests that parties wishing to submit comments specify which issue, noted above, they are addressing. Commenters may submit one document which addresses several issues but they should separate, to the extent possible, those comments that relate to the 2003-2006 ZEV program amendments and those that relate to the 2007 and subsequent model year ZEV program amendments.
Persons with comments containing proprietary information must distinguish such information from other comments to the greatest possible extent and label it as “Confidential Business Information” (CBI). If a person making comments wants EPA to base its decision in part on a submission labeled CBI, then a nonconfidential version of the document that summarizes the key data or information should be submitted for the public docket. To ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket, submissions containing such information should be sent directly to the contact person listed above and not to the public docket. Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission when EPA receives it, EPA will make it available to the public without further notice to the person making comments.
Notice.
The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (“Commission”) will meet in closed session twice in February. The first meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 2, 2005, and Thursday, February 3, 2005, in its offices in Arlington, Virginia. The second meeting will be held in the same location on Wednesday, February 16, 2005, and Thursday, February 17, 2005.
Executive Order 13328 established the Commission for the purpose of assessing whether the Intelligence Community is sufficiently authorized, organized, equipped, trained, and resourced to identify and warn in a timely manner of, and to support the United States Government's efforts to respond to, the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction, related means of delivery, and other related threats of the 21st Century. This meeting will consist of briefings and discussions involving classified matters of national security, including classified briefings from representatives of agencies within the Intelligence Community; Commission discussions based upon the content of classified intelligence documents the Commission has received from agencies within the Intelligence Community; and presentations concerning the United States' intelligence capabilities that are based upon classified information. While the Commission does not concede that it is subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 United States Code Appendix 2, it has been determined that both February meetings would fall within the scope of exceptions (c)(1) and (c)(9)(B) of the Sunshine Act, 5 United States Code, Sections 552b(c)(1) & (c)(9)(B), and thus could be closed to the public if FACA did apply to the Commission.
First meeting: Wednesday, February 2, 2005 (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.) and Thursday, February 3, 2005. (9 a.m. to 2 p.m.). Second meeting: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.) and Thursday, February 17, 2005 (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.).
Members of the public who wish to submit a written statement to the Commission are invited to do so by facsimile at (703) 414-1203, or by mail at the following address: Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, Washington, DC, 20503. Comments also may be sent to the Commission by e-mail at
Contact Brett C. Gerry, Associate General Counsel, Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, by facsimile, or by telephone at (703) 414-1200.
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before March 21, 2005. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments to Leslie F. Smith, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Room 1-A804, Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet to
For additional information or copies of the information collection(s) contact Leslie F. Smith at (202) 418-0217 or via the Internet at
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Persons wishing to comment on this information collection should submit comments by March 21, 2005. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Room 1-C804, Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet to
For additional information or copies of the information collections contact Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214 or via the internet at
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the following public information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Dana Jackson, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554, (202) 418-2247 or via the Internet at
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 1, 2005.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 11, 2005.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 11, 2005.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 11, 2005.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6, title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby give of the following meeting.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant application, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAID.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, including consideration of personal qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4), and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C.,
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by the intramural research review cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, January 3, 2005, 1 p.m. to January 3, 2005, 5 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
The meeting will be held January 28, 2005. The meeting time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of The Board of Scientific Counselors of the Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the Clinical Center, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a proposed new information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), this notice seeks comments concerning a study of the effectiveness of the National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP) FloodSmart, a multimedia marketing campaign, aimed at measuring homeowners' awareness, attitudes, and purchasing of flood insurance.
FEMA administers the NFIP created by Congress in 1968 (Pub. L. 90-488 as amended) in response to mounting losses due to floods. Unlike federal disaster assistance, the NFIP does not rely upon appropriated tax dollars to pay claims and operating expenses, but rather it self-supports through premiums collected from flood insurance policies. Communities choosing to participate in the NFIP adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood loses in exchange for federally-backed flood insurance made available to property owners in those communities. Based on the correlation between public awareness and purchasing of flood insurance, the NFIP, through the FloodSmart campaign, educates the public on the risks posed by floods and the availability of flood insurance to property owners in participating communities.
Interested persons should submit written comments to Muriel B. Anderson, Chief, Records Management Section, Information Resources Management Branch, Information Technology Services Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, 500 C Street, SW., Room 316, Washington, DC 20472.
Contact Carolyn Goss, Program Analyst, Risk Management Marketing Section at (202) 646-3468 for additional information. You may contact Ms. Anderson for copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number (202) 646-3347 or e-mail address:
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notice of Cooperating Technical Partners Flood Hazard Mapping Program.
FEMA gives notice of the requirements for the Cooperating Technical Partners Program for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005.
FEMA has an estimated $50 million available nationwide for funding partner projects in FY 2005.
The FEMA Regional Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP) Coordinators for your region. We list names, addresses, and telephone numbers for the Regional CTP Coordinators at the end of this Notice.
We are implementing the Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP) program as part of our Flood Map Modernization Program. The plan document for our Map Modernization Program and progress reports concerning the Program are available at
Establishing formal partnerships with State, regional, and local organizations to produce NFIP maps is beneficial for the following reasons:
• The data used for local permitting and planning will also be the basis for the NFIP map, facilitating more efficient floodplain management;
• The CTP program provides the opportunity to interject a tailored, local focus into a national program; thus, where unique conditions may exist, we can take needed special approaches to flood hazard identification; and
• The partnership mechanism provides the opportunity to pool resources and extend the productivity of limited public funds.
Under this program, the partners will enter into a general overall agreement that recognizes the fundamental importance of flood hazard identification, flood insurance, and floodplain management. Then, through a collaborative process, the partners will identify the specific flood hazard mapping activities to be undertaken. If this process results in CTP activities that we will support with FEMA funds, the partners will enter into a Cooperative Agreement and define the roles and responsibilities for each Flood Map Project through agreements termed Mapping Activity Statements. The intent of any Cooperative Agreement and accompanying funds that we award is to supplement and not to supplant ongoing mapping efforts by the community, regional agency, or State agency. Further, we envision that this collaborative process will maximize the extent, accuracy, and utility of flood studies to best meet local and Federal needs, while minimizing costs for all parties.
Additional guidance on the program is available at
(1) The CTP applicant must be a community participating in the NFIP and be in good standing in the program as determined by FEMA, or be a State or regional agency that serves communities that participate in the NFIP.
(2) The CTP applicant must have existing processes or systems in place that support mapping or data collection activities that contribute to flood hazard identification. Non-federal funding must support these ongoing processes or systems.
(3) The CTP applicant must have the capability and commitment to perform the mapping activities for which it is applying. We require a demonstration of this capability, which an applicant may demonstrate through (but not limited to) a Regional Office review of both previously prepared map products and the applicant's existing processes or systems for the production of map products that the applicant intends to use for CTP activities.
(4) The CTP applicant that will receive funds under a Cooperative Agreement must be able to perform the financial management activities required as part of the Cooperative Agreement (
(5) The CTP applicant must have in-house staff capabilities in the appropriate technical area for the given activity. If the applicant contracts out a portion of the activities, the CTP applicant must have in-house staff capability to monitor the contractor as well as review and approve the resulting products. For these purposes, “capability” means “demonstrated experience in the performance, or management of, similar activities.”
(6) CTP applicants that use contactors to perform FEMA-funded activities must ensure that those contractors meet the requirements of 44 CFR part 13. Within part 13, section 13.36 covers procurement standards that must be followed for any mapping-related activities for which the CTP applicant wishes to contract with another party. Items in this part include contract administration and record-keeping, notification requirements, review procedures, competition, methods of procurement, and cost and pricing analysis. If desired, our Regional Offices will provide assistance on developing selection criteria for contracted tasks. All work must meet the standards and certification requirements described in Subsections “
(1)
(2)
(1) The continued maintenance (funded/supported by the CTP) for existing and/or future processes or systems in place to support mapping or data collection activities that contribute to flood hazard identification,
(2) The demonstrated commitment by the CTP for existing and continued support of flood hazard identification and mapping activities conducted with and by FEMA;
(3) Adherence to timeliness and completeness of performance and financial report to the Regional Office;
(4) Adherence to timeliness and completeness of map products to the Regional Office;
(5) Quality of product(s) submitted to the Regional Office; and
(6) Ability to cooperate and coordinate with the Regional Office, FEMA Risk Identification Branch of the Mitigation Division in Washington, and/or the FEMA Flood Map Production Coordination Contractor during all phases of the mapping activity as needed.
We will evaluate the performance of each CTP throughout the project and upon completion of the period of performance for each Mapping Activity Statement. This evaluation will determine the adequacy of the performance by the CTP and the eligibility for future Mapping Activity Statements to be initiated. Insufficient performance by the CTP may result in cancellation of FEMA funding at any point during the period of performance for a Mapping Activity Statement.
The FEMA Regional Office contacts for the CTP programs are:
• Region I (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont): Dean Savramis, 99 High Street, 6th Floor, Boston, MA 02110, telephone: (978) 461-5323, e-mail:
• Region II (New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands): Paul Weberg, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1337, New York, NY 10278-0002, telephone: (212) 680-363, e-mail:
• Region III (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia): Nikki Roberts, One Independence Mall, 615 Chestnut Street, 6th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19106-4404, telephone: (215) 931-5575 for Nikki Roberts, e-mail:
• Region IV (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee): Laura Algeo, 3003 Chamblee Tucker Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, telephone: (770) 220-5515, e-mail:
• Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin): Ken Hinterlong, Team Lead, 536 South Clark Street, 6th Floor, Chicago, IL 60605, telephone: (312) 408-5529, e-mail:
Mary Jo Mullen (Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio), 536 South Clark Street, 6th Floor, Chicago, IL 60605, telephone: (312) 408-5541, e-mail:
Lee Traeger (Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) 536 South Clark Street, 6th Floor, Chicago, IL 60605, telephone: (312) 408-5538 e-mail:
• Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas): Gary Zimmerer (Arkansas and Louisiana), Federal Regional Center, 800 North Loop 288, Room 206, Denton, TX
Jim Orwat (New Mexico and Oklahoma), Federal Regional Center, 800 North Loop 288, Room 206, Denton, TX 76210-3698, telephone: (940) 898-5302, e-mail:
Jack Quarles (Texas), Federal Regional Center, 800 North Loop 288, Room 206, Denton, TX 76210-3698, telephone: (940) 898-5156, e-mail:
• Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska), Bob Franke, 2323 Grand Avenue, Suite 900, Kansas City, MO 64108-2670, telephone: (816) 283-7073, e-mail:
• Region VIII (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming): John Liou or Marijo Camrud, Denver Federal Center, Bldg. 710, Box 25267, Denver, CO 80225-0267, telephone: (303) 235-4836, telephone: (303) 235-4835, e-mail:
• Region IX (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, American Samoa, Guam, Marshall Islands and Northern Mariana Islands): Les Sakumoto (Northern California and Nevada), 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200, Oakland, CA 94607, telephone: (510) 627-7183, e-mail:
Ray Lenaburg (Southern California, Arizona, Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, Marshall Islands and Northern Mariana Islands) 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200, Oakland, CA 94607, telephone: (510) 627-7181, e-mail:
• Region X (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington): Dave Carlton, Federal Regional Center, 130 228th Street SW., Bothell, WA 98021-9796, telephone: (425) 487-4703, e-mail:
The meeting will be held at the Office of Entergy Corporation, 101 Constitution Avenue, NW., Suite 200 East, Washington, DC 20001.
The meeting will be closed as provided in 22 CFR 1004.4(f) to discuss matters related to the search for candidates for the position of President of the Inter-American Foundation.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of document availability and public comment period.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of the technical agency draft recovery plan for six Mobile Basin aquatic snails. The six snails included in the recovery plan are: the endangered cylindrical lioplax (
In order to be considered, we must receive comments on the technical agency draft recovery plan on or before March 21, 2005.
If you wish to review this technical agency draft recovery plan, you may obtain a copy by contacting the Jackson, Mississippi Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, MS 39213 (telephone (601) 965-4900), or by visiting our recovery plan Web site at
1. You may submit written comments and materials to the Field Supervisor, at the above address.
2. You may hand-deliver written comments to our Jackson, Mississippi Field Office, at the above address, or fax your comments to (601) 965-4900.
3. You may send comments by e-mail to
Comments and materials received are available for public inspection on request, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
Paul Hartfield (Telephone 601-321-1125).
On October 28, 1998 (63 FR 57610), we listed six aquatic snails, in the Mobile River Basin, as threatened (painted rocksnail, round rocksnail, lacy elimina) or endangered (cylindrical lioplax, flat pebblesnail, plicate rocksnail) under the Act. These six snails are endemic to portions of the Mobile River Basin in central Alabama. The cylindrical lioplax, flat pebblesnail, and round rocksnail are found in the Cahaba River drainage; the lacy elimina and painted rocksnail are in the Coosa River drainage; and the plicate rocksnail is in the Black Warrior River drainage. These snails require rock, boulder, or cobble substrates and clean, unpolluted water and are found on shoals and riffles of large streams and rivers. Impoundment and water quality degradation have eliminated the six snails from 90 percent or more of their historic habitat. Known populations are restricted to small portions of stream drainages. These surviving populations are currently threatened by pollutants such as sediments and nutrients that wash into streams from the land surface.
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 endangered species program. To help guide the recovery effort, we are preparing recovery plans for most listed species. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary
The Act 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 requires us to provide a public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment during recovery plan development. We will consider all information presented during a public comment period prior to approval of each new or revised recovery plan. We and other Federal agencies will take these comments into account in the course of implementing approved recovery plans.
The objective of this technical agency draft plan is to provide a framework for the recovery of these six aquatic snails so that protection under the Act is no longer necessary. As reclassification and recovery criteria are met, the status of these species will be reviewed and they will be considered for reclassification or removal from the
We solicit written comments on the recovery plan described. We will consider all comments received by the date specified above prior to final approval of the draft recovery plan.
Please submit electronic comments as an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and encryption. Please also include your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly by calling our Mississippi Field Office (see
Our practice is to make all comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold also from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533 (f).
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of Final Agency Determination to take land into trust under 25 CFR part 151.
The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs made a final agency determination to acquire approximately 12.72 acres of land into trust for the Suquamish Tribe of Washington on April 21, 2004. This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 Departmental Manual 8.1.
George Skibine, Office of Indian Gaming Management, Office of Policy—Economic Development, MS-4606 MIB, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240; Telephone (202) 219-4066.
This notice is published to comply with the requirement of 25 CFR 151.12(b) that notice be given to the public of the Secretary's decision to acquire land in trust at least 30 days prior to signatory acceptance of the land into trust. The purpose of the 30-day waiting period in 25 CFR 151.12(b) is to afford interested parties the opportunity to seek judicial review of final administrative decisions to take land in trust for Indian tribes and individual Indians before transfer of title to the property occurs. On April 21, 2004, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs decided to accept approximately 12.72 acres of land into trust for the Suquamish Tribe of Washington under the authority of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 25 U.S.C. 465. On April 10, 2003, the Regional Solicitor, Pacific Northwest Region determined that the acquisition of this parcel in trust status for gaming is consistent with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2719 (a)(1), because the parcel is located within the boundaries of the Suquamish Reservation as the reservation existed on October 17, 1988.
That portion of Government Lot 2, Section 29, Township 26 North, Range 2 East, W.M., in Kitsap County, Washington, described as follows:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 2 (A CONCRETE MONUMENT) WHICH BEARS SOUTH 1°40′06″ WEST 1339.80 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 2, BEING A CONCRETE MONUMENT AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PLAT OF “AGATE WEST” AS PER VOLUME 9 OF PLATS, PAGE 52; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 2, NORTH 1°40′06″ EAST 272.88 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF STATE HIGHWAY 305; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY NORTH 61°57′40″ EAST 21.17 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY THE FOLLOWING; NORTH 61°57′50″ EAST 275.79 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 28°02′20″ EAST 25.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 61°57′40″ EAST 231.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG A 100 FOOT OFFSET SPIRAL TO THE RIGHT (CENTERLINE SPIRAL OF “A-1
Containing 12.72 acres, more or less.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Institution of investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 16, 2004, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of FANUC Robotics America, Inc. of Rochester Hills, Michigan. A letter supplementing the complaint was filed on January 4, 2005. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electric robots and component parts thereof by reason of infringement of claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 6,477,913. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders.
The complaint and supplement, except for any confidential information contained therein, are available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
Kevin Baer, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2221.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2004).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain electric robots or component parts thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 6,477,913, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is—
(b) The respondents are the following companies alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) Kevin Baer, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436, who shall be the Commission investigative attorney, party to this investigation; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Honorable Paul J. Luckern is designated as the presiding administrative law judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of a limited exclusion order or cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice of Commission determinations to conduct full five-year reviews concerning the antidumping duty orders on solid urea from Russia and Ukraine.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty
January 4, 2005.
Mary Messer (202) 205-3193, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
On January 4, 2005, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act. The Commission found that both the domestic and Russian respondent interested party group responses to its notice of institution (69 FR 58957, October 1, 2004) were adequate but it found that the Ukrainian respondent interested party group response was inadequate. However, the Commission determined to conduct a full review concerning subject imports from Ukraine to promote administrative efficiency in light of its decision to conduct a full review with respect to solid urea from Russia. A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
International Trade Commission.
January 26, 2005, at 2 p.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agenda for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Inv. No. 731-TA-653 (Second Review)(Sebacic Acid from China)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before February 8, 2005.)
5. Outstanding action jackets:
(1) Document No. GC-04-152: Concerning administrative matters.
(2) Document No. GC-04-173: Concerning Inv. No. 337-TA-406 (Certain Lens-Fitted Film Packages)(Enforcement Proceedings II).
(3) Document No. GC-04-178: Concerning administrative matters.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
60-day notice of information collection under review: certification on agency letterhead authorizing purchase of firearm for official duties of law enforcement officer.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until March 21, 2005. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact David Chipman, Chief, Firearms Enforcement Branch, Room 7400, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Brenda E. Dyer, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530.
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Department of Justice.
Notice; solicitation of comments.
On November 16, 2004, DEA published in the
Written comments must be postmarked, and electronic comments must be sent, on or before March 21, 2005.
To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA-261” on all written and electronic correspondence. Written comments being sent via regular mail should be sent to the Deputy Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/CCD. Written comments sent via express mail should be sent to DEA Headquarters, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/CCD, 2401 Jefferson-Davis Highway, Alexandria, VA 22301.
Comments may be directly sent to DEA electronically by sending an electronic message to
Daniel Dormont, Senior Attorney, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537; telephone: (202) 307-8010.
On November 16, 2004, DEA published in the
As was the case with the Interim Policy Statement, none of the principles addressed in the upcoming
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a forthcoming meeting of the
Thursday, February 3, 2005, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.; and Friday, February 4, 2005, 8 a.m. to 12 noon.
Sheraton Safari Hotel, 12205 Apopka Vineland Road, Orlando, FL 32836.
Dr. Dana Gould, MS 149, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681-2199 (757) 864-7747.
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. Visitors to the meeting will be requested to sign a visitor's register.
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the NASA Solar System Exploration Strategic Roadmap Committee.
Thursday, February 3, 2005, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Friday, February 4, 2005, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Pacific Standard Time.
NASA Ames Conference Center, Bldg 3, 500 Severyns Road, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000.
Ms. Rho Christensen at (650) 604-2476.
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the meeting room. Attendees will be requested to sign a register.
The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of availability of a Record of Decision following a Final Environmental Impact Statement/Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (FEIS/FCEE) for activities proposed to be undertaken in Antarctica.
The National Science Foundation gives notice of the availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement/Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (FEIS/FCEE) for activities proposed to be undertaken in Antarctica.
The Office of Polar Programs (OPP) has decided to proceed with the construction and operation of a high-energy neutrino telescope to be located at the Amundsen-Scott Station, South Pole, Antarctica. Given the United States Antarctic Program's (USAP) mission to support polar research, the proposed action will result in a telescope that has been specifically designed to detect a wide diversity of high-energy neutrinos of astrophysical origin. In reaching this decision, the Director of the Office of Polar Programs has considered the potential environmental impacts addressed in the Project IceCube EIS/CEE. The Director has also considered input from Antarctic Treaty nations and the public pertaining to the EIS/CEE for Project IceCube.
Pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 2403a, the National Science Foundation has prepared this Record of Decision following the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation for Project IceCube, Amundsen-Scott Station, South Pole, Antarctica.
Copies of the Record of Decision are available upon request from: Dr. Polly A. Penhale, National Science Foundation, Office of Polar Programs, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 755, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-8033.
A Notice of Availability of the draft EIS/CEE was published in the
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has received an application from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Nebraska-Western Iowa Health Care System dated September 21, 2004, for a license amendment approving its proposed decommissioning plan for the Alan J. Blotcky Reactor Facility (Facility License No. R-57) located in Omaha, Nebraska.
In accordance with 10 CFR 20.1405, the Commission is providing notice and soliciting comments from local and State governments in the vicinity of the site and any Indian Nation or other indigenous people that have treaty or statutory rights that could be affected by the decommissioning. This notice and solicitation of comments is published pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1405, which provides for publication in the
Comments should be provided within 30 days of the date of this notice to Patrick M. Madden, Chief, Research and Test Reactors Section, New, Research and Test Reactors Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Mail Stop O12-G13, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Further, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(b)(5), notice is also provided to interested persons of the Commission's intent to approve the plan by amendment, subject to such conditions and limitations as it deems appropriate and necessary, if the plan demonstrates that decommissioning will be performed in accordance with the regulations in this chapter and will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
A copy of the application (Accession Number ML042740512) is available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records component of the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC web site at (the Public Electronic Reading Room)
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on January 27-28, 2005, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss ACRS business processes, anticipated workload, potential areas for improved effectiveness, ACRS subcommittee structure, and other activities related to the conduct of ACRS business. It will also discuss issues related to power uprates.
The Subcommittee will continue to discuss ACRS business processes, anticipated workload, and other activities related to the conduct of ACRS business. It will also discuss certain proactive committee initiatives.
The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Dr. John T. Larkins (telephone: (301) 415-7360) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal will hold a meeting on February 9, 2005, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the License Renewal Application and associated Safety Evaluation Report (SER) with Open Items related to the License Renewal of the Donald C. Cook Plant, Units 1 and 2. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, Indiana Michigan Power Company, and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Cayetano Santos (telephone 301/415-7270) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are
Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from December 23, 2004, through January 5, 2005. The last biweekly notice was published on January 4, 2005 (70 FR 398).
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change involves requirements to maintain two operable channels in order to add a level of detection capability and greater assurance that the safety function for control room isolation is met. In addition, the proposed change will not alter the setpoint value for the radiation monitors nor will it affect the method for control room air filtration during the emergency mode of operation. Therefore, the proposed change from one operable channel to two operable channels for the control room isolation radiation monitoring instrumentation will not increase the probability of consequences of any previously evaluated accident.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change involves radiation monitoring channels designed to send a signal to isolate the control room when high radiation levels are detected to limit the radiological dose to the control room operators in the event of an accident. In addition, the proposed change will not have an impact on the setpoint value to change the radiation level at which control room isolation is assumed to occur. Again, the proposed change will not introduce failure modes, accident initiators, or malfunctions. Therefore, the proposed change from one operable channel to two operable channels for the control room isolation radiation monitoring instrumentation, will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Increasing the number of radiation monitoring channels for the control room isolation radiation monitoring instrumentation will not reduce a margin of safety. The proposed change to add requirements to the TS for a redundant radiation monitoring channel will increase the reliability of the system to perform its intended function. In addition, the proposed change will add appropriate compensatory actions for conditions when both channels are not available. Therefore, given that the proposed change will continue to meet the current design basis, any reduction in a margin of safety would not be significant.
Based on the NRC staff's analysis, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.929(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously analyzed. The changes involve the transfer of requirements from the administrative section of the Technical Specifications to the Consolidated Quality Assurance Program and other licensee controlled documents. Therefore, the proposed changes are administrative in nature, and have no effect on a design basis accident, and will not increase the probability or consequences of any previously analyzed accident.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The implementation of the proposed changes does not create the possibility of an accident of a different type than was previously evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The transfer of requirements concerning facility staff qualifications from the administrative section of the Technical Specifications to the Consolidated Quality Assurance Program and other licensee controlled documents can not initiate a new or different kind of accident.
These changes do not alter the nature of events postulated in the UFSAR nor do they introduce any unique precursor mechanisms. Therefore, the proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those previously analyzed.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The implementation of the proposed changes does not reduce the margin of safety. The proposed changes to transfer certain requirements from the administration section of the Technical Specifications to the Consolidated Quality Assurance Program and other licensee controlled documents have no effect on design bases radiological events. It is thus concluded that the proposed changes are administrative in nature and the margin of safety will not be reduced by the implementation of the changes.
Based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes are administrative or editorial in nature and do not involve any physical changes to the plant. The changes do not revise the methods of plant operation which could increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No new modes of operation are introduced by the proposed changes such that a previously evaluated accident is more likely to occur or more adverse consequences would result.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in accordance with the proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
These changes are administrative or editorial in nature and do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment, nor do they involve any potential initiating events that would create any new or different kind of accident. There are no changes to the design assumptions, conditions, configuration of the facility, or manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The changes do not affect assumptions contained in plant safety analyses or the physical design and/or modes of plant operation. Consequently, no new failure mode is introduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
There are no changes being made to the Technical Specification (TS) safety limits or safety system settings. The operating limits and functional capabilities of systems, structures and components are unchanged as a result of these administrative and editorial changes. These changes do not affect any equipment involved in potential initiating events or plant response to accidents. There is no change to the basis for any TS that is related to the establishment, or maintenance of, a nuclear safety margin.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY) in accordance
The proposed amendment removes details of SLC pressure relief valve and recirculation pump discharge valve testing requirements from the TS. Following implementation of the proposed change, the VY TS will still require operability testing of the subject components by reference to the VY IST [Inservice Testing] Program. Details of SLC pressure relief valve and recirculation pump discharge valve testing requirements will still be contained in the VY IST Program. The SLC pressure relief valve and recirculation pump discharge valve setpoint values related to the safety functions of those systems will continue to be contained in the VY UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report]. Changes to the VY UFSAR are evaluated per the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59. These controls are adequate to ensure the required inservice testing is performed to verify the components are operable and capable of performing their respective safety functions. The proposed amendment introduces no new equipment or changes to how equipment is operated. Neither the SLC pressure relief valves nor the recirculation pump discharge valves are initiators of any analyzed accidents. Therefore, operation of VY in accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY) in accordance with the proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment removes details of SLC pressure relief valve and recirculation pump discharge valve testing requirements from the TS. The proposed amendment does not change the design or function of any component or system. No new modes of failure or initiating events are being introduced. Therefore, operation of VY in accordance with the proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY) in accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed amendment removes details of SLC pressure relief valve and recirculation pump discharge valve testing requirements from the TS. The proposed amendment does not change the design or function of any component or system. The proposed amendment does not involve any safety limits or limiting safety system settings.
Since the proposed controls are adequate to ensure the required inservice testing is performed, there will still be high assurance that the components are operable and capable of performing their respective safety functions, and that the systems will respond as designed to mitigate the subject events. Therefore, operation of VY in accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not significantly affect the design or fundamental operation and maintenance of the plant. Accident initiators or the frequency of analyzed accident events are not significantly affected as a result of the proposed changes; therefore, there will be no significant change to the probabilities of accidents previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not significantly alter assumptions or initial conditions relative to the mitigation of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes continue to ensure process variables, structures, systems, and components (SSCs) are maintained consistent with the safety analyses and licensing basis. The revised technical specifications continue to require that SSCs are properly maintained to ensure operability and performance of safety functions as assumed in the safety analyses. The design basis events analyzed in the safety analyses will not change significantly as a result of the proposed changes to the TS.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in accordance with the proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not involve any physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment being installed) and do not involve a change in the design, normal configuration or basic operation of the plant. The proposed changes do not introduce any new accident initiators. In some cases, the proposed changes impose different requirements; however, these new requirements are consistent with the assumptions in the safety analyses and current licensing basis. Where requirements are relocated to other licensee-controlled documents, adequate controls exist to ensure their proper maintenance.
The proposed changes do not involve significant changes in the fundamental methods governing normal plant operation and do not require unusual or uncommon operator actions. The proposed changes provide assurance that the plant will not be operated in a mode or condition that violates the essential assumptions or initial conditions in the safety analyses and that SSCs remain capable of performing their intended safety functions as assumed in the same analyses. Consequently, the response of the plant and the plant operator to postulated events will not be significantly different.
Therefore, the proposed TS change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions during and following an accident situation. The proposed changes do not significantly affect any of the assumptions, initial conditions or inputs to the safety analyses. Plant design is unaffected by these proposed changes and will continue to provide adequate defense-in-depth and diversity of safety functions as assumed in the safety analyses.
There are no proposed changes to any of the Safety Limits or Limiting Safety System Setting requirements. The proposed changes maintain requirements consistent with safety analyses assumptions and the licensing basis. Fission product barriers will continue to meet their design capabilities without any significant impact to their ability to maintain parameters within acceptable limits. The safety functions are maintained within acceptable limits without any significant decrease in capability.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three
The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change eliminates the Technical Specifications (TSs) reporting requirements to provide a monthly operating letter report of shutdown experience and operating statistics if the equivalent data is submitted using an industry electronic database. It also eliminates the TS reporting requirement for an annual occupational radiation exposure report, which provides information beyond that specified in NRC regulations. The proposed change involves no changes to plant systems or accident analyses. As such, the change is administrative in nature and does not affect initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents or transients. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant, add any new equipment, or require any existing equipment to be operated in a manner different from the present design. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
This is an administrative change to reporting requirements of plant operating information and occupational radiation exposure data, and has no effect on plant equipment, operating practices or safety analyses assumptions. For these reasons, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Based upon the reasoning presented above, the requested change does not involve significance hazards consideration.
The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change eliminates the Technical Specifications (TSs) reporting requirements to provide a monthly operating report of shutdown experience and operating statistics if the equivalent data is submitted using an industry electronic database. It also eliminates the TS reporting requirement for an annual occupational radiation exposure report, which provides information beyond that specified in NRC regulations. The proposed change involves no changes to plant systems or accident analyses. As such, the change is administrative in nature and does not affect initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents or transients. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant, add any new equipment, or require any existing equipment to be operated in a manner different from the present design. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
This is an administrative change to reporting requirements of plant operating information and occupational radiation exposure data, and has no effect on plant equipment, operating practices or safety analyses assumptions. For these reasons, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Based upon the reasoning presented above, the requested change does not involve significance hazards consideration.
1. Does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change modifies the [Surveillance Requirements] SR to verify that the [Reactor Building] RB spray nozzles are unobstructed after maintenance that could introduce material that could result in nozzle blockage. The spray nozzles are not assumed to be initiators of any previously analyzed
2. Does not create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change revises the SR to verify that the RB spray nozzles are unobstructed after maintenance that could result in nozzle blockage. The change does not introduce a new mode of plant operation and does not involve physical modification to the plant. The change will not introduce new accident initiators or impact the assumptions made in the safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The proposed change revises the frequency for performance of the SR to verify that the RB spray nozzles are unobstructed. The frequency is changed from every 10 years to following maintenance that could result in nozzle blockage. This requirement, along with foreign material exclusion programs and the remote physical location of the spray nozzles, provides assurance that the spray nozzles will remain unobstructed. As the spray nozzles are expected to remain unobstructed and able to perform their post-accident mitigation function, plant safety is not significantly affected. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change eliminates the Technical Specifications (TSs) reporting requirements to provide a monthly operating report of shutdown experience and operating statistics if the equivalent data is submitted using an industry electronic database. It also eliminates the TS reporting requirement for an annual occupational radiation exposure report, which provides information beyond that specified in NRC regulations. The proposed change involves no changes to plant systems or accident analyses. As such, the change is administrative in nature and does not affect initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents or transients. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant, add any new equipment, or require any existing equipment to be operated in a manner different from the present design. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
This is an administrative change to reporting requirements of plant operating information and occupational radiation exposure data, and has no effect on plant equipment, operating practices or safety analyses assumptions. For these reasons, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Based upon the reasoning presented above, the requested change does not involve significance hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment involves implementation of the AST for the fuel handling accident at MNGP [Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant]. There are no physical design modifications to the plant associated with the proposed amendment. The revised calculations do not impact the initiators of an FHA in any way.
The changes also do not impact the initiators for any other design basis accident (DBA) or events. Therefore, because DBA initiators are not being altered by adoption of the AST analyses, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not affected.
With respect to consequences, the only previously evaluated accident that could be affected is the FHA. The AST is an input to calculations used to evaluate the consequences of the accident, and does not, in and of itself, affect the plant response or the actual pathways to the environment utilized by the radiation/activity released by the fuel. It does however, better represent the physical characteristics of the release, so that appropriate mitigation techniques may be applied. For the FHA, the AST analyses demonstrate acceptable doses that are within regulatory limits after 24 hours of radiological decay, without credit for Secondary Containment integrity, selected ESF [engineered safety feature] filtration system operation (
Based on the above conclusions, this proposed amendment does not involve a
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of the plant. No new or different types of equipment will be installed and there are no physical modifications to existing equipment associated with the proposed changes. Also, no changes are proposed to the methods governing plant/system operation during handling of irradiated fuel, so no new initiators or precursors of a new or different kind of accident are created. New equipment or personnel failure modes that might initiate a new type of accident are not created as a result of the proposed amendment.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
The proposed amendment is associated with the implementation of a new licensing basis for the MNGP FHA. Approval of this change from the original source term to an alternative source term derived in accordance with the guidance of RG 1.183 [“Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors”] is being requested. The results of the FHA accident analysis, revised in support of the proposed license amendment, are subject to revised acceptance criteria. The AST FHA analysis has been performed using conservative methodologies, as specified in RG 1.183. Safety margins have been evaluated and analytical conservatism has been utilized to ensure that the analyses adequately bound the postulated limiting event scenario. The dose consequences of the limiting FHA remain within the acceptance criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67 and RG 1.183.
The proposed changes continue to ensure that the doses at the Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) and Low Population Zone (LPZ) boundaries, as well as the Control Room, are within the corresponding regulatory limits. For the FHA, RG 1.183 conservatively sets the EAB and LPZ limits below the 10 CFR 50.67 limit, and sets the Control Room limit consistent with 10 CFR 50.67.
Since the proposed amendment continues to ensure the doses at the EAB, LPZ and Control Room are within corresponding regulatory limits, the proposed license amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, NMC has determined that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration as defined in 10 CFR 50.92(c), in that it: (1) Does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; and (3) does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed Technical Specification (TS) changes involve changes in the surveillance testing to facilitate a change in the operating cycle from 18 months to 24 months. The proposed TS changes do not physically impact the normal operation of the plant, nor do they impact any design or functional requirements of the associated systems. That is, the proposed TS changes neither impact the TS SRs [surveillance requirements] themselves nor the manner in which the surveillances are performed.
In addition, the proposed TS changes do not introduce any accident initiators, since no accidents previously evaluated relate to the frequency of surveillance testing. Also, evaluations of the proposed TS changes demonstrate that the availability of equipment and systems required to prevent or mitigate the radiological consequences of an accident are not significantly affected because of other, more frequent testing that is performed, the availability of redundant systems and equipment, or the high reliability of the equipment. Since the impact on the systems is minimal NMC [Nuclear Management Company] has concluded that the overall impact on the plant safety analysis is negligible.
A historical review of surveillance test results and associated maintenance records indicated that there was no evidence of any failure that would invalidate the above conclusions.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Changes are proposed to the Monticello TS Trip Settings. The proposed changes are a result of application of the Monticello Instrument Setpoint Methodology using plant-specific drift values. Application of this methodology results in Trip Setpoints that more accurately reflect total instrumentation loop accuracy, as well as that of test equipment and calculated drift between surveillances. The proposed changes will not result in hardware changes. The instrumentation is not assumed to be initiators of any analyzed events, nor do they impact any design or functional requirements of the associated systems. Existing operating margins between plant conditions and actual plant setpoints are not significantly reduced due to the proposed changes. The role of the instrumentation is in mitigating and thereby, limiting the consequences of accidents.
The Nominal Trip Setpoints were developed to ensure the design and safety analysis limits are satisfied. The methodology used for the development of the Trip Settings ensures: (1) The affected instrumentation remains capable of mitigating design basis events as described in the safety analysis; and, (2) the results and radiological consequences described in the safety analysis remain bounding. The proposed changes do not alter the plant's ability to detect and mitigate events.
Therefore, these changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed TS changes involve reductions in the surveillance testing intervals from once per operating cycle or refueling outage to once every three (3) months or once per quarter for the equipment associated with these TS SRs. The shorter intervals are based upon the plant-specific results of a review of the surveillance test history for this equipment. The implementing procedures for these SRs have been performed on a once per three (3) month or once per quarter interval for a number of years, and these changes more accurately reflect actual plant maintenance practices. The proposed, more restrictive TS changes do not physically impact the plant, nor do they impact any design or functional requirements of the associated systems. That is, the proposed TS changes neither degrade the performance of, nor increase the challenges to, any safety system assumed to function in the safety analysis. These proposed TS changes neither impact the TS SRs themselves nor the manner in which the surveillances are performed.
The proposed TS changes do not introduce any accident initiators, since no accident previously evaluated relate to the frequency
Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not significantly increase the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind or accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed TS changes involve changes in the surveillance testing intervals to facilitate a change in the operating cycle length. The proposed TS changes do not introduce any failure mechanisms of a different type than those previously evaluated. There are no physical changes being made to the facility. No new or different equipment is being installed. No installed equipment is being operated in a different manner. As a result no new failure modes are introduced. The SRs themselves, and the manner in which surveillance tests are performed, remain unchanged.
A historical review of surveillance test results and associated maintenance records indicated that there was no evidence of any failure that would invalidate the above conclusions.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed changes to the Trip Settings are a result of applying the Monticello Instrument Setpoint Methodology using plant-specific drift values. The application of this methodology does not create the possibility of any new or different kinds of accidents from any accidents previously evaluated. This is based upon the fact that the method and manner of plant operations are unchanged.
The use of the proposed Trip Setpoints does not impact the safe operation of the plant in that the safety analysis limits are maintained. The proposed changes in Trip Settings involve no system additions or physical modifications to plant systems. The Trip Settings are revised to ensure the affected instrumentation remains capable of mitigating accidents and transients. Plant equipment will not be operated in a manner different from previous operation. Since operational methods remain unchanged and the operating parameters were evaluated to maintain the plant within existing design basis criteria no different type of failure or accident is created.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed TS changes involve reductions in the surveillance testing intervals from once per operating cycle or refueling outage to once every three (3) months or once per quarter for the equipment associated with these TS SRs. The shorter intervals are based upon the plant-specific results of a review of the surveillance test history for this equipment. The implementing procedures for these SRs have been performed on a once per three (3) month or once per quarter interval for a number of years and these changes more accurately reflect actual plant maintenance practices. The proposed more restrictive TS changes do not physically impact the plant, nor do they impact any design or functional requirements of the associated systems. That is, the proposed TS changes neither degrade the performance of, nor increase the challenges to, any safety system assumed to function in the safety analysis. These proposed TS changes neither impact the TS SRs themselves nor the manner in which the surveillances are performed.
The proposed TS changes do not introduce any failure mechanism of a different type than those previously evaluated. The proposed changes make no physical changes to the plant. No new or different equipment is being installed. No installed equipment is being operated in a different manner.
A historical review of surveillance test results and associated maintenance records indicate that there is no evidence of any failure that would invalidate the above conclusions.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. The proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Although the proposed TS changes result in changes in the interval between surveillance tests, the impact, if any, on system availability is minimal based upon other, more frequent testing that is performed, the existence of redundant systems and equipment or overall system reliability. Evaluations show there is no evidence of any time-dependant failure that would impact system availability.
The proposed changes do not significantly impact the condition or performance of structures, systems and components relied upon for accident mitigation. The proposed TS changes do not physically impact the plant, nor do they impact any design or functional requirements of the associated systems. The proposed changes do not significantly impact any safety analysis assumptions or results.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed changes do not involve a reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed changes were developed using a Monticello Instrument Setpoint Methodology using plant-specific drift values. This methodology ensures no safety analysis limits are exceeded. The proposed TS changes do not physically impact the plant, nor do they impact any design or functional requirements of the associated systems.
As such, these proposed changes do not involve a reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed TS changes result in a shorter interval between surveillance tests to ensure the assumptions of the safety analysis are maintained. The impact, if any, on system availability is minimal, as a result of the more frequent testing that is performed. The proposed changes do not significantly impact the condition or performance of structures, systems and components relied upon for accident mitigation. The proposed TS changes do not physically impact the plant, nor do they impact any design or functional requirements of the associated systems. The proposed changes do not significantly impact any safety analysis assumptions or results.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves NSHC.
The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model no significant hazards consideration determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the
The revised 10 CFR 50.44 no longer defines a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) hydrogen release, and eliminates requirements for hydrogen control systems to mitigate such a release. The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that this hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after the onset of core damage. In addition, these systems were ineffective at mitigating hydrogen releases from risk-significant accident sequences that could threaten containment integrity.
With the elimination of the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release, hydrogen monitors are no longer required to mitigate design-basis accidents and, therefore, the hydrogen monitors do not meet the definition of a safety-related component as defined in 10 CFR 50.2. Category 1 in RG 1.97 is intended for key variables that most directly indicate the accomplishment of a safety function for design-basis accident events. The hydrogen monitors no longer meet the definition of Category 1 in RG 1.97. As part of the rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 50.44 the Commission found that Category 3, as defined in RG 1.97, is an appropriate categorization for the hydrogen monitors because the monitors are required to diagnose the course of beyond design-basis accidents.
The regulatory requirements for the hydrogen monitors can be relaxed without degrading the plant emergency response. The emergency response, in this sense, refers to the methodologies used in ascertaining the condition of the reactor core, mitigating the consequences of an accident, assessing and projecting offsite releases of radioactivity, and establishing protective action recommendations to be communicated to offsite authorities. Classification of the hydrogen monitors as Category 3, and removal of the hydrogen monitors from TS will not prevent an accident management strategy through the use of the severe accident management guidelines (SAMGs), the emergency plan (EP), the emergency operating procedures (EOPs), and site survey monitoring that support modification of emergency plan protective action recommendations (PARs).
Therefore, the elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, does not involve a significant increase in the probability or the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, will not result in any failure mode not previously analyzed. The hydrogen recombiner and hydrogen monitor equipment was intended to mitigate a design-basis hydrogen release. The hydrogen recombiner and hydrogen monitor equipment are not considered accident precursors, nor does their existence or elimination have any adverse impact on the pre-accident state of the reactor core or post accident confinement of radionuclides within the containment building.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, in light of existing plant equipment, instrumentation, procedures, and programs that provide effective mitigation of and recovery from reactor accidents, results in a neutral impact to the margin of safety.
The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that this hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after the onset of core damage.
Category 3 hydrogen monitors are adequate to provide rapid assessment of current reactor core conditions and the direction of degradation while effectively responding to the event in order to mitigate the consequences of the accident. The intent of the requirements established as a result of the TMI Unit 2 accident can be adequately met without reliance on safety-related hydrogen monitors.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. Removal of hydrogen monitoring from TS will not result in a significant reduction in their functionality, reliability, and availability.
Based upon the reasoning presented above, the requested change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change eliminates the Technical Specifications (TSs) reporting requirements to provide a monthly operating letter report of shutdown experience and operating statistics if the equivalent data is submitted using an industry electronic database. It also eliminates the TS reporting requirement for an annual occupational radiation exposure report, which provides information beyond that specified in NRC regulations. The proposed change involves no changes to plant systems or accident analyses. As such, the change is administrative in nature and does not affect initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents or transients.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant, add any new equipment, or require any existing equipment to be operated in a manner different from the present design. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
This is an administrative change to reporting requirements of plant operating information and occupational radiation exposure data, and has no effect on plant equipment, operating practices or safety analyses assumptions. For these reasons, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Based upon the reasoning presented above, the requested change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
This change was proposed by the industry's Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) and is designated TSTF-359. The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the
The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS. Being in a TS condition and the associated required actions is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The consequences of an accident while relying on required actions as allowed by proposed LCO 3.0.4, are no different than the consequences of an accident while entering and relying on the required actions while starting in a condition of applicability of the TS. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). Entering into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS, will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS. The TS allow operation of the plant without the full complement of equipment through the conditions for not meeting the TS LCO. The risk associated with this allowance is managed by the imposition of required actions that must be performed within the prescribed completion times. The net effect of being in a TS condition on the margin of safety is not considered significant. The proposed change does not alter the required actions or completion times of the TS. The proposed change allows TS conditions to be entered, and the associated required actions and completion times to be used in new circumstances. This use is predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the management of plant risk. The change also eliminates current allowances for utilizing required actions and completion times in similar circumstances, without assessing and managing risk. The net change to the margin of safety is insignificant. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The proposed license amendment will revise TS 3.3.11, “Post Accident Monitoring Instrumentation (PAMI),” to delete the Note in Condition C. Also in TS 3.3.11, Condition D will be deleted. In TS Table 3.3.11-1, Item 10, “Containment Hydrogen Monitors,” is deleted. Other TS changes included in this application are limited to renumbering and formatting changes that resulted directly from the deletion of the above requirements related to hydrogen monitors. The changes to TS requirements result in changes to various TS Bases sections. The TS Bases changes will be submitted with a future update in accordance with TS 5.4.4, “Technical Specifications (TS) Bases Control.”
The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the
The revised 10 CFR 50.44 no longer defines a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) hydrogen release, and eliminates requirements for hydrogen control systems to mitigate such a release. The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that this hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after the onset of core damage. In addition, these systems were ineffective at mitigating hydrogen releases from risk-significant accident sequences that could threaten containment integrity.
With the elimination of the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release, hydrogen monitors are no longer required to mitigate design-basis accidents and, therefore, the hydrogen monitors do not meet the definition of a safety-related component as defined in 10 CFR 50.2. RG 1.97 Category 1, is intended for key variables that most directly indicate the accomplishment of a safety function for design-basis accident events. The hydrogen monitors no longer meet the definition of Category 1 in RG 1.97. As part of the rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 50.44 the Commission found that Category 3, as defined in RG 1.97, is an appropriate categorization for the hydrogen monitors because the monitors are required to diagnose the course of beyond design-basis accidents.
The regulatory requirements for the hydrogen monitors can be relaxed without degrading the plant emergency response. The emergency response, in this sense, refers to the methodologies used in ascertaining the condition of the reactor core, mitigating the consequences of an accident, assessing and projecting offsite releases of radioactivity, and establishing protective action recommendations to be communicated to offsite authorities. Classification of the hydrogen monitors as Category 3, and removal of the hydrogen monitors from TS will not prevent an accident management strategy through the use of the SAMGs [severe accident management guidelines], the emergency plan (EP), the emergency operating procedures (EOP), and site survey monitoring that support modification of emergency plan protective action recommendations (PARs).
Therefore, the elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, does not involve a significant increase in the probability or the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, will not result in any failure mode not previously analyzed. The hydrogen recombiner and hydrogen monitor equipment was intended to mitigate a design-basis hydrogen release. The hydrogen recombiner and hydrogen monitor equipment are not considered accident precursors, nor does their existence or elimination have any adverse impact on the pre-accident state of the reactor core or post accident confinement of radionuclides within the containment building.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, in light of existing plant equipment, instrumentation, procedures, and programs that provide effective mitigation of and recovery from reactor accidents, results in a neutral impact to the margin of safety.
The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that this hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after the onset of core damage.
Category 3 hydrogen monitors are adequate to provide rapid assessment of current reactor core conditions and the direction of degradation while effectively responding to the event in order to mitigate the consequences of the accident. The intent of the requirements established as a result of the TMI, Unit 2 accident can be adequately met without reliance on safety-related hydrogen monitors.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. Removal of hydrogen monitoring from TS will not result in a significant reduction in their functionality, reliability, and availability.
Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
1. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes to Technical Specifications (TS) 3.8.4 and 3.8.6 would allow extension of the Completion Time (CT) for inoperable Direct Current (DC) distribution subsystems to manually cross-connect DC distribution buses of the same safety train of the operating unit for a period of 30 days. Currently the CT only allows for 2 hours to ascertain the source of the problem before a controlled shutdown is initiated. Loss of a DC subsystem is not an initiator of an event. However, complete loss of a Train A (subsystems A and C) or Train B (subsystems B and D) DC system would initiate a plant transient/plant trip.
Operation of a DC Train in cross-connected configuration does not affect the quality of DC control and motive power to any system. Therefore, allowing the cross-connect of DC distribution systems does not significantly increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated in Chapter 15 of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
The above conclusion is supported by Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) evaluation which encompasses all accidents, including UFSAR Chapter 15.
Modification to the Frequency for Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.6.1 is consistent with the recommendations of TSTF 360 Rev. 1 and IEEE 450-2002, and similarly does not impact safety considerations.
Further changes are made of an editorial nature or provide clarification only. For example, discussions regarding electrical ‘Trains' and ‘Subsystems' will be in more conventional terminology. Limiting Condition for Operations (LCOs) affected by editorial changes include 3.8.1, 3.8.4, 3.8.5, 3.8.6, 3.8.7, and 3.8.9.
Enhancements from TSTF-360, Rev. 1 and IEEE 450-2002 have been incorporated into LCOs 3.8.4 and 3.8.6. TSTF-360, Rev. 1 was previously approved by the NRC, and IEEE 450-2002 includes industry-generic recommendations.
The changes being proposed do not affect assumptions contained in other safety analyses or the physical design of the plant other than the upgrades of the electrical systems described in this change, nor do they affect other Technical Specifications that preserve safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
2. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change create the possibility of new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change to Technical Specifications 3.8.4 will enable the cross-tie of subsystems. New equipment, swing battery chargers, distribution panels, and associated protective devices are added to increase overall DC system reliability. Both administrative and mechanical controls will be in place to ensure the design and operation of the DC distribution systems continue to perform to applicable design standards. During cross connecting of subsystem buses, two batteries would be paralleled for a short duration. An electrical fault during that duration could exceed the interrupting duties of the protective devices. This is standard industry practice during transfer of power sources and is considered to be an acceptable minimal risk. For example, the design of the 1E 4kV power system is based on this practice as well. Therefore, the addition of new equipment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Enhancements from TSTF-360, Rev. 1 and IEEE 450-2002 have been incorporated into LCOs 3.8.4 and 3.8.6. TSTF-360, Rev. 1 is previously approved and IEEE 450-2002 includes industry-generic recommendations. Enhancements, including surveillance intervals or required completion times, will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
LCOs 3.8.1, 3.8.4, 3.8.5, 3.8.6, 3.8.7, and 3.8.9 are revised to incorporate editorial changes. Since these changes do not affect plant design but enhance clarity, these modifications do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change will not create the possibility of new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change does not alter the bases for assurance that safety-related activities are performed correctly or the basis for any Technical Specification that is related to the establishment of or maintenance of a safety margin. Specifically, battery sizing calculations continue to show that new upgraded capacity batteries will meet the most limiting load profile that includes margin for growth, with aging and temperature correction. Battery modified performance discharge testing will demonstrate on an on-going basis that battery capacity will be greater than or equal to 80% of original design requirements at all times during service life and that the service profiles will be met as is currently required by Surveillance Requirements 3.8.4.7 and 3.8.4.8. The addition of the DC cross-tie capability proposed for LCO 3.8.4 will ensure appropriate operations of the DC buses during maintenance activities such as battery testing or replacement. Enhancements from TSTF-360, Rev. 1 and IEEE 450-2002 have been incorporated into LCOs 3.8.4 and 3.8.6. TSTF-360, Rev. 1 is previously approved and IEEE 450-2002 includes industry-generic recommendations. Enhancements including surveillance intervals or required completion times will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Also, LCOs 3.8.1, 3.8.4, 3.8.5, 3.8.6, 3.8.7, and 3.8.9 are revised to incorporate editorial changes. Since these changes do not affect plant design or operations but should enhance clarity, these modifications would not involve a significant reduction in margin of safety.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
This change was proposed by the industry's Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) and is designated TSTF-
The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS. Being in a TS condition and the associated required actions is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The consequences of an accident while relying on required actions as allowed by proposed LCO 3.0.4, are no different than the consequences of an accident while entering and relying on the required actions while starting in a condition of applicability of the TS. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). Entering into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS, will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS. The TS allow operation of the plant without the full complement of equipment through the conditions for not meeting the TS LCO. The risk associated with this allowance is managed by the imposition of required actions that must be performed within the prescribed completion times. The net effect of being in a TS condition on the margin of safety is not considered significant. The proposed change does not alter the required actions or completion times of the TS. The proposed change allows TS conditions to be entered, and the associated required actions and completion times to be used in new circumstances. This use is predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the management of plant risk. The change also eliminates current allowances for utilizing required actions and completion times in similar circumstances, without assessing and managing risk. The net change to the margin of safety is insignificant. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No. The DGs are designed as backup AC power sources in the event of loss of offsite power. The proposed DG TS AOT does not change the conditions, operating configurations, or minimum amount of operating equipment assumed in the safety analysis for accident mitigation. No changes are proposed in the manner in which the DGs provide plant protection or which create new modes of plant operation. In addition, a PSA [probabilistic safety assessment] evaluation concluded that the risk contribution of the DG TS AOT extension is non-risk significant. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed amendment does not introduce new equipment, which could create a new or different kind of accident. No new external threats, release pathways, or equipment failure modes are created. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed amendment will not create a possibility for an accident of a new or different type than those previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
No. BFN's emergency AC system is designed with sufficient redundancy such that a DG may be removed from service for maintenance or testing. The remaining DGs are capable of carrying sufficient electrical loads to satisfy the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] requirements for accident mitigation or unit safe shutdown.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed changes deal exclusively with the reactor vessel P-T curves, which define the permissible regions for operation and testing. Failure of the reactor vessel is not considered as a design basis accident. Through the design conservatisms used to calculate the P-T curves, reactor vessel failure has a low probability of occurrence and is not considered in the safety analyses. The proposed changes adjust the reference temperature for the limiting material to account for irradiation effects and provide the same level of protection as previously evaluated and approved.
The adjusted reference temperature calculations were performed in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix G using the guidance contained in Regulatory Guide 1.190, “Calculational and Dosimetry Methods for Determining Pressure Vessel Neutron Fluence,” to reflect use of the operating limits to no more than 16 Effective Full Power Years (EFPY). These changes do not alter or prevent the operation of equipment required to mitigate any accident analyzed in the BFN Final Safety Analysis Report.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed changes to the reactor vessel P-T curves do not involve a modification to plant equipment. No new failure modes are introduced. There is no effect on the function of any plant system, and no new system interactions are introduced by this change. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
No. The proposed curves conform to the guidance contained in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.190, “Calculational and Dosimetry Methods for Determining Pressure Vessel Neutron Fluence,” and maintain the safety margins specified in 10 CFR 50 Appendix G. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Of the various accidents previously evaluated, the proposed changes only affect the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event evaluation and the postulated steam line break (SLB) accident evaluation. Loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) conditions cause a compressive axial load to act on the tube. Therefore, since the LOCA tends to force the tube into the tubesheet rather than pull it out, it is not a factor in this amendment request. Another faulted load consideration is a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE); however, the seismic analysis of Westinghouse 51 series SGs has shown that axial loading of the tubes is negligible during an SSE.
TVA's amendment request takes credit for how the tubesheet enhances the tube integrity in the Westinghouse Electric Company explosive tube expansion (WEXTEX) region by precluding tube deformation beyond its initial expanded outside diameter. For the SGTR and SLB events, the required structural margins of the SG tubes will be maintained due to the presence of the tubesheet. Tube rupture is precluded for axial cracks in the WEXTEX region due to the constraint provided by the tubesheet. Therefore, the normal operating 3ΔP margin and the postulated accident 1.43ΔP margin against burst are maintained.
The W* length supplies the necessary resistive force to preclude pullout loads under both normal operating and accident conditions. The contact pressure results from the WEXTEX expansion process, thermal expansion mismatch between the tube and tubesheet, and from the differential pressure between the primary and secondary side. Therefore, the proposed change results in no significant increase in the probability or the occurrence of an SGTR or SLB accident.
The proposed changes do not affect other systems, structures, components or operational features. Therefore, based on the above evaluation, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The consequences of an SGTR event are primarily affected by the primary-to-secondary flow rate and the time duration of the primary-to-secondary flow during the event. Primary-to-secondary flow rate through a postulated ruptured tube (
The postulated SLB has the greatest primary-to-secondary pressure differential, and therefore could experience the greatest primary-to-secondary leakage. TVA's amendment request requires the aggregate leakage, (
TVA's proposed change also removes the existing axial PWSCC [primary water stress corrosion cracking] at dented tube support plate ARC and removes the exclusion made for Unit 2 Cycle 12 operation only from the TS. This ARC was not used on Unit 2 and was only intended through the Unit 2 Cycle 12 operation. Therefore, this change is inherently more conservative.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
TVA's amendment request does not introduce any physical changes to the Sequoyah Unit 2 SGs. TVA's amendment request takes credit for how the tubesheet enhances the SG tube integrity in the WEXTEX region by precluding tube deformation beyond its initial expanded outside. Removal of the existing PWSCC axial at dented tube support plate ARC incorporates the more conservative TS limit for SG tube plugging. A failure to meet SG tube integrity results in an SGTR. Because degradation detected within the WEXTEX region are required to be plugged, it is highly unlikely that a W* tube would fail as a result of a circumferential defect. Therefore a tube severance, which would strike neighboring tubes and create a multiple tube rupture, is not credible.
The proposed change does not introduce any new equipment or any change to existing equipment. No new effects on existing equipment are created.
Based on the above evaluation, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The amendment request maintains the structural margins of the SG tubes for both normal and accident conditions that are required by Regulatory Guide 1.121.
For cracking located within the tubesheet, tube burst is precluded due to the presence of the tubesheet. WCAP-14797 defines a length, W*, of degradation free expanded tubing that provides the necessary resistance to tube pullout due to the pressure induced forces (with applicable safety factor applied). Application of the W* methodology will preclude unacceptable primary-to-secondary leakage during all plant conditions. The methodology for determining leakage provides for large margins between calculated and actual leakage values in the W* criteria. TVA's proposed change to remove PWSCC ARC from the TS does not compromise structural integrity or leakage integrity of SG tubes.
Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not result in a significant reduction of margin with respect to plant safety as defined in the safety analysis report or TSs.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The relocation and enhancement of the loss of power functions to a new LCO does not alter the intended functions of this feature or physically alter these systems. Changes to Avs [allowable values] have been evaluated in accordance with TVA [Tennessee Valley Authority] setpoint methodology and have been verified to acceptably protect the associated safety limits. Format changes provide a clearer representation of the requirements and provide more consistency with the standard TSs [Technical Specifications] in NUREG-1431. The EDG [emergency diesel generator] and AFW [auxiliary feedwater] start functions provided by this instrumentation are utilized for the mitigation of accident conditions and are not considered to be a potential source for accident generation. Additionally, these start functions are enhanced by the addition of an upper allowable value limit such that the accident mitigation functions are not challenged unnecessarily. This further assures the ability to mitigate accidents and maintain acceptable offsite dose limits. These changes continue to support or improve the required safety functions; therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes for the loss of power instrumentation will not alter plant processes, components, or operating practices. The function to start the EDGs and AFW pumps on a loss of voltage or degraded voltage to the shutdown boards will not be altered by the proposed change. Additionally, the EDGs and AFW system is not considered to be a source for the generation of postulated accidents. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes do not alter any plant settings or functions that are utilized to mitigate accident conditions. The enhanced allowable values for the voltage sensors help to prevent unnecessary actuation of mitigation systems to ensure their ability to respond to actual accident conditions. The parameters that ensure the required margin of safety will be maintained with the proposed changes or improved. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
This change was proposed by the industry's Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) and is designated TSTF-359. The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the
The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS. Being in a TS condition and the associated required actions is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The consequences of an accident while relying on required actions as allowed by proposed LCO 3.0.4, are no different than the consequences of an accident while entering and relying on the required actions while starting in a condition of applicability of the TS. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). Entering into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS, will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS. The TS allow operation of the plant without the full complement of equipment through the conditions for not meeting the TS LCO. The risk associated with this allowance is managed by the imposition of required actions that must be performed within the prescribed completion times. The net effect of being in a TS condition on the margin of safety is not considered significant. The proposed change does not alter the required actions or completion times of the TS. The proposed change allows TS conditions to be entered, and the associated required actions and completion times to be used in new circumstances. This use is predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the management of plant risk. The change also eliminates current allowances for utilizing required actions and completion times in similar circumstances, without assessing and managing risk. The net change to the margin of safety is insignificant. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
This change was proposed by the industry's Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) and is designated TSTF-359. The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the
The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS. Being in a TS condition and the associated required actions is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The consequences of an accident while relying on required actions as allowed by proposed LCO 3.0.4, are no different than the consequences of an accident while entering and relying on the required actions while starting in a condition of applicability of the TS. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). Entering into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS, will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS. The TS allow operation of the plant without the full complement of equipment through the conditions for not meeting the TS LCO. The risk associated with this allowance is managed by the imposition of required actions that must be performed within the prescribed completion times. The net effect of being in a TS condition on the margin of safety is not considered significant. The proposed change does not alter the required actions or completion times of the TS. The proposed change allows TS conditions to be entered, and the associated required actions and completion times to be used in new circumstances. This use is predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the management of plant risk. The change also eliminates current allowances for utilizing required actions and completion times in similar circumstances, without assessing and managing risk. The net change to the margin of safety is insignificant. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change eliminates the Technical Specifications (TSs) reporting requirements to provide a monthly operating letter report of shutdown experience and operating statistics if the equivalent data is submitted using an industry electronic database. It also eliminates the TS reporting requirement for an annual occupational radiation exposure report, which provides information beyond that specified in NRC regulations. The proposed change involves no changes to plant systems or accident analyses. As such, the change is administrative in nature and does not affect initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents or transients. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant, add any new equipment, or require any existing equipment to be operated in a manner different from the present design. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
This is an administrative change to reporting requirements of plant operating information and occupational radiation exposure data, and has no effect on plant equipment, operating practices or safety analyses assumptions. For these reasons, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Based upon the reasoning presented above, the requested change does not involve significant hazards consideration.
The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model no significant hazards consideration determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the
The revised 10 CFR 50.44 no longer defines a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) hydrogen release, and eliminates requirements for hydrogen control systems to mitigate such a release. The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that this hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after the onset of core damage. In addition, these systems were ineffective at mitigating hydrogen releases from risk-significant accident sequences that could threaten containment integrity.
With the elimination of the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release, hydrogen monitors are no longer required to mitigate design-basis accidents and, therefore, the hydrogen monitors do not meet the definition of a safety-related component as defined in 10 CFR 50.2. Category 1 in RG 1.97 is intended for key variables that most directly indicate the accomplishment of a safety function for design-basis accident events. The hydrogen monitors no longer meet the definition of Category 1 in RG 1.97. As part of the rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 50.44 the Commission found that Category 3, as defined in RG 1.97, is an appropriate categorization for the hydrogen monitors because the monitors are required to diagnose the course of beyond design-basis accidents.
The regulatory requirements for the hydrogen monitors can be relaxed without degrading the plant emergency response. The emergency response, in this sense, refers to the methodologies used in ascertaining the condition of the reactor core, mitigating the consequences of an accident, assessing and projecting offsite releases of radioactivity, and establishing protective action recommendations to be communicated to offsite authorities. Classification of the hydrogen monitors as Category 3, and removal of the hydrogen monitors from TS will not prevent an accident management strategy through the use of the severe accident management guidelines (SAMGs), the emergency plan (EP), the emergency operating procedures (EOP), and site survey monitoring that support modification of emergency plan protective action recommendations (PARs).
Therefore, the elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, does not involve a significant increase in the probability or the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, will not result in any failure mode not previously analyzed. The hydrogen recombiner and hydrogen monitor equipment was intended to mitigate a design-basis hydrogen release. The hydrogen recombiner and hydrogen monitor equipment are not considered accident precursors, nor does their existence or elimination have any adverse impact on the pre-accident state of the reactor core or post accident confinement of radionuclides within the containment building.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, in light of existing plant equipment, instrumentation, procedures, and programs that provide effective mitigation of and recovery from reactor accidents, results in a neutral impact to the margin of safety.
The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that this hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after the onset of core damage.
Category 3 hydrogen monitors are adequate to provide rapid assessment of current reactor core conditions and the direction of degradation while effectively responding to the event in order to mitigate the consequences of the accident. The intent of the requirements established as a result of the TMI, Unit 2 accident can be adequately met without reliance on safety-related hydrogen monitors.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. Removal of hydrogen monitoring from TS will not result in a significant reduction in their functionality, reliability, and availability.
The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change eliminates the Technical Specifications (TSs) reporting requirements to provide a monthly operating letter report of shutdown experience and operating statistics if the equivalent data is submitted using an industry electronic database. It also eliminates the TS reporting requirement for an annual occupational radiation exposure report, which provides information beyond that specified in NRC regulations. The proposed change involves no changes to plant systems or accident analyses. As such, the change is administrative in nature and does not affect initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents or transients. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant, add any new equipment, or require any existing equipment to be operated in a manner different from the present design. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
This is an administrative change to reporting requirements of plant operating information and occupational radiation exposure data, and has no effect on plant equipment, operating practices or safety analyses assumptions. For these reasons, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Based upon the reasoning presented above, the requested change does not involve significance hazards consideration.
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not affect the DGs ability to supply the minimum voltage and frequency within 12 seconds or the steady state voltage and frequency. The DGs will continue to perform their intended safety function, in accordance with the safety analysis. The design of plant equipment is not being modified by the proposed change. In addition, the DGs and their associated emergency loads are accident mitigating features. As such, testing of the DGs themselves is not associated with any potential accident-initiating mechanism.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational [or] public radiation exposures. The proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change revises surveillance requirements to clarify what voltage and frequency limits are applicable during the transient and steady state portions of the DG start testing. No changes are being made in equipment hardware, operational philosophy, testing frequency, system operation, or how the DGs are physically tested.
The proposed changes do not result in a change in the manner in which the electrical distribution subsystems provide plant protection. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions during and following an accident situation. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. The proposed change does not directly affect these barriers, nor do they involve any significantly adverse impact on the DGs which serve to support these barriers in the event of an accident concurrent with a loss of offsite power.
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not impacted by these changes. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The following notices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these actions was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation Report, dated December 20, 2004.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 23, 2004.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 5, 2005.
The supplemental letters contained clarifying information and did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination and did not expand the scope of the original
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 21, 2004.
The supplement dated September 28, 2004, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 23, 2004.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 22, 2004.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 23, 2004.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 28, 2004.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 28, 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President.
Notice of public availability of agency inventory of activities that are not inherently governmental and of activities that are inherently governmental.
In accordance with the FAIR Act, agency inventories of activities that are not inherently governmental are now available to the public from the agencies listed below. The FAIR Act requires that OMB publish an announcement of public availability of agency inventories of activities that are not inherently governmental upon completion of OMB's review and consultation process concerning the content of the agencies' inventory submissions. After review and consultation with OMB, agencies make their inventories available to the public, and these inventories also include activities that are inherently governmental. This is the second release of the FAIR Act inventories for FY 2004. Interested parties who disagree with the agency's initial judgment can challenge the inclusion or the omission of an activity on the list of activities that are not inherently governmental within 30 working days and, if not satisfied with this review, may demand a higher agency review/appeal.
The Office of Federal Procurement Policy has made available a FAIR Act User's Guide through its Internet site:
On December 17, 2004, Corautus Genetics Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Issuer”), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Issuer stated that it determined that it is in the best interest of the Issuer to withdraw the Security from listing on the Amex and to list on The Nasdaq National Market (“Nasdaq”). The Issuer stated that it believes that changing its listing to the Nasdaq at this time will better serve its shareholders by enhancing the visibility of the Issuer and increase the liquidity in its Security as a result of the multiple market marker structure. Trading in the Security on the Nasdaq began on October 13, 2004.
The Issuer states that it has met the requirements of the Amex's rules governing an issuer's voluntary withdrawal of a security from listing and registration by complying with all the applicable laws in effect in Delaware, in which it is incorporated.
The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the Security from listing on the Amex and from registration under Section 12(b) of the Act,
Any interested person may, on or before February 4, 2005, comment on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of the Amex, and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment letters may be submitted by either of the following methods:
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
All submissions should refer to File Number 1-15833. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 20, 2004, Edison International, a California corporation (“Issuer”), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Board of Directors (“the Board”) of the Issuer approved resolutions on November 18, 2004, to withdraw the Securities from listing on the PCX. The Board stated that the reasons for its decision to withdraw the Securities from the PCX are as follows: (i) The Securities are listed and predominately traded on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE”), and the Securities will continue to be listed on NYSE, giving shareholders a continued means of trading their Securities; (ii) as a listed company on the NYSE and PCX, the Issuer is subject to dual and potentially conflicting regulation; (iii) the Issuer wishes to eliminate the additional costs and administrative burdens associated with maintaining dual listing of the Securities on the PCX and the NYSE; and (iv) there were no significant business reasons for maintaining the listing of the Securities on the PCX.
The Issuer stated in its application that it has complied with applicable rules of the PCX Rule 5.4(b) by providing the PCX with the required documents governing the withdrawal of securities from listing and registration on the PCX. The Issuer's application
Any interested person may, on or before February 4, 2005 comment on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of the PCX, and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment letters may be submitted by either of the following methods:
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
All submissions should refer to File Number 1-09936. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 20, 2004, Southern California Edison Company, a California corporation (“Issuer”), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Board of Directors (“the Board”) of the Issuer approved a resolution on November 18, 2004 to withdraw the Securities from listing on the PCX. The Board stated that the reasons for its decision to withdraw the Securities from the PCX are as follows: (i) The Securities are listed and traded on the American Stock Exchange LLC, (“Amex”), and the Securities will continue to be listed on Amex, giving shareholders a continued means of trading their Securities; (ii) as a listed company on the Amex and PCX, the Issuer is subject to dual and potentially conflicting regulation; (iii) the Issuer wishes to eliminate the additional costs and administrative burdens associated with maintaining dual listing of the Securities on the PCX and the Amex; and (iv) there were no significant business reasons for maintaining the listing of the Securities on the PCX.
The Issuer stated in its application that it has complied with applicable rules of the PCX Rule 5.4(b) by providing the PCX with the required documents governing the withdrawal of securities from listing and registration on the PCX. The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the Securities from listing on the PCX and shall not affect its continued listing on the Amex or its obligation to be registered under Section 12(b) of the Act.
Any interested person may, on or before February 4, 2005 comment on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of the PCX, and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment letters may be submitted by either of the following methods:
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
All submissions should refer to File Number 1-02313. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
The Exchange proposes to adopt an Interpretation to CBOE Rule 8.95 relating to temporary allocations of securities. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the CBOE's Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
CBOE Rule 8.95 governs the allocation of securities on the Exchange and generally provides a framework by which the Allocation or Special Product Assignment Committee determines whether to allocate a security to a trading crowd or a Designated Primary Market-Maker (“DPM”). Paragraph (b) gives these Committees the ability to consider any factors they believe to be relevant in making such determinations. The purpose of this rule filing is to adopt Interpretations and Policies .05 (“I&P .05”) to CBOE Rule 8.95 to clarify that the Exchange has the authority to grant a temporary allocation.
In this regard, the Exchange anticipates listing on the Hybrid Trading System (“Hybrid”) new option classes on ETFs and possibly indexes in the very near future. Currently, index options and options on ETFs (“index-based products”) may only trade on Hybrid if they have an assigned DPM, which precludes the trading of an index-based product on Hybrid using an LMM system or a trading crowd with only Market-Makers. In December, the Exchange filed SR-CBOE-2004-87, which would allow it to trade these index-based products without a DPM. Upon approval of that rule filing, the Exchange would like the ability to reconsider changing the trading platform
Accordingly, proposed I&P .05 provides the ability to grant initial allocations on a temporary basis and at any point within one year to reallocate the security such that it trades on a different trading platform (
CBOE believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing proposed rule change is immediately effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2005-03. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
FICC proposes to amend the rules of its Government Securities Division (“GSD”) and Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (“MBSD”) regarding membership requirements for non-U.S. applicants and members.
In its filing with the Commission, FICC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Currently, GSD requires non-U.S. members and applicants to submit financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”) “whenever necessary and feasible.” MBSD requires non-U.S. members and applicants to submit financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. Both divisions review such financial statements as part of their credit risk management program.
FICC proposes to amend these requirements uniformly across both divisions to enable non-U.S. members and applicants to submit financial statements that are prepared according to any other generally accepted accounting methodology (“non-U.S. GAAP”).
In order to lessen the risk associated with accepting financial statements prepared in accordance with non-U.S. GAAP, FICC would increase the existing minimum financial requirements of each applicant and member based on which non-U.S. GAAP was used to prepare the audited financial statement in the following manner:
(a) For applicants and members whose financial statements are prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”), the Companies Act of 1985 (“U.K. GAAP”), or Canadian GAAP, the minimum financial requirements would be one and one-half times the applicable requirements.
(b) For applicants and members whose financial statements are prepared in accordance with a European Union country GAAP (“EU GAAP”) other than U.K. GAAP, the minimum financial requirements would be five times the applicable requirements.
(c) For applicants and members whose financial statements are prepared in accordance with any other type of GAAP, the minimum financial requirements would be seven times the applicable requirements.
For example, currently under the GSD's rules, the minimum financial requirement for a bank netting member is equity capital of US$100 million. This will continue to be the requirement for all such members (both U.S. and non-U.S. members), whose financial statements are prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. If such a member's financial statements were prepared in accordance with IFRS, U.K. GAAP, or Canadian GAAP, the member's minimum financial requirement would be US$150 million. If such a member's financial statements were prepared in accordance with an EU country GAAP other than U.K. GAAP, the member's minimum financial requirement would be US$500 million. If a member's financial statements were prepared in accordance with any other type of GAAP, the member's minimum financial requirement would be US$700 million.
FICC would retain the requirement that annual audited financial statements submitted by members and applicants be certified without qualification. The proposed rule change would make clear that annual audited financial statements must be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. In addition, all information submitted to FICC would have to be in English or would have to be a fair and accurate English translation if the information had been translated into English. Additionally, in order to accommodate this change for members other than banks, the proposed rule change provides that specific references to the term U.S. regulatory capital should be deemed to refer to the general term of “regulatory capital.”
The proposed rule changes would be applied to current members as well as applicants.
As part of its credit risk management, FICC requires applicants and members to submit interim financial data. In the case of U.S. bank and broker-dealer members, the GSD and the MBSD are able to obtain this financial information through regulatory reports. Non-U.S. MBSD members are required to submit unaudited monthly financial statements to MBSD. Non-U.S. GSD netting members are required to submit certain quarterly financial information to GSD. The GSD rules also currently require non-U.S. members and applicants to also submit all “material regulatory filings” that the entity makes with its primary regulator in its home jurisdiction. However, FICC cannot specifically identify all such material regulatory filings for non-U.S. members and applicants with confidence.
In order to enhance FICC's credit risk monitoring program, the proposed rule change, which would be adopted uniformly across both FICC divisions, would require non-U.S. members (other than those organized or established in the U.K. and regulated by the FSA) to provide specific monthly or quarterly financial data, as applicable, directly to FICC. FICC will provide the non-U.S. members with a form requesting specific financial data related to capital, assets, liabilities, revenue, pertinent ratios, and various capital requirements, as applicable.
Broker-dealers and banks that are organized or established in the U.K. and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (“FSA”) will be required to submit certain regulatory monthly or quarterly reports, as applicable, that are filed with the FSA.
FICC recognizes that certain regulatory filings provide warnings of possible concerns regarding a member's compliance with regulatory standards and its financial status. For example, under FICC's current rules, GSD's and MBSD's U.S. broker-dealer members are required to submit to FICC SEC Rule 17a-11 reports. GSD's netting members, MBSD's U.S. non-broker-dealer members, and all non-U.S. members must submit to FICC, concurrently with their submission to their relevant regulator, copies of regulatory notifications required to be made when a member's capital levels or other financial requirements fall below prescribed levels.
Finally, the proposed rule change would require MBSD non-U.S. regulated applicants to certify that they are in compliance with the financial reporting and responsibility standards of their home country. This requirement was recently added to GSD's rules.
FICC believes that members that are incorporated outside of the U.S. present FICC with increased legal risk in the event they become insolvent as compared to members incorporated within the U.S.
In order to mitigate this risk, FICC has required, and will continue to require, non-U.S. GSD netting and MBSD clearing applicants to submit non-U.S. legal opinions drafted by outside counsel from the jurisdiction in which the member is incorporated and/or primarily conducts its business. FICC will continue to make a case-by-case determination, based on its analysis of the legal opinion, as to the legal risks presented by the home country laws of such applicants. In doing so, FICC will retain U.S. outside counsel to review the opinions and to advise FICC of any risks presented. The proposed rule filing makes clear that, based on the review of the legal opinion, FICC will determine what, if any, protective measures will be required to mitigate any legal risks. Protective action may, for example, take the form of requiring the member to post additional collateral and/or requiring a member to post a certain percentage of its collateral requirement in a certain form (such as letters of credit).
FICC recognizes that some of its non-U.S. netting and clearing members have been members for some time. In order to protect itself against any adverse changes in home country law that may have arisen since the members submitted their legal opinions and in order to determine whether any positive developments in home country law would support eliminating or relaxing the collateral premiums currently imposed on certain members,
The proposed rule change would also require all non-U.S. members to provide an annual update of their non-U.S. legal opinion or to provide a letter from their outside counsel stating that no material issues have arisen since the issuance of the opinion or the last update. FICC may impose such additional requirements on such members as described above based on review of such updated legal opinions.
Upon reviewing its membership rules for non-U.S. members, FICC has determined that certain rules applicable to both U.S. and non-U.S. applicants and members need to be updated. Specifically, the proposed rule change would delete all references to certifications by the chief executive officer, chief financial officer, or other that accompany financial statements, financial data, or regulatory reports. These certifications do not appear to be standard documentation, and FICC historically has not received such certifications. If a need to request a certification with respect to a particular member or applicant arises, FICC would have the authority to request it pursuant to the general authority that it has in both division's rules to seek additional information.
In addition, in a prior proposed rule change approved by the Commission, FICC amended its rules intending to give FICC the option to request that financial figures be submitted in U.S. dollar equivalents.
In addition, the proposed rule change would amend the number of recent routine regulatory reports that a U.S. GSD netting or MBSD clearing applicant is required to submit to FICC to the number of such reports that the entity has filed during the preceding 12 months or a lesser period if the applicant has been in business or has been registered or licensed for a lesser period. For example, a GSD U.S. broker-dealer applicant that is a monthly FOCUS filer would need to submit copies of all of its FOCUS reports filed during the preceding 12 months. With respect to 17a-11 reports, where the current rules do not specify the necessary time period, the proposed rule change requires U.S. broker-dealer applicants to submit all 17a-11 reports filed during the preceding 24 months.
FICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact or impose any burden on competition.
FICC has received comments on the proposed rule change orally and in writing from the Institute of International Banks, representing the GSD non-U.S. members and from one non-U.S. MBSD participant. All such comments have been forwarded to the Commission.
Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2004-14. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 14, 2004, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FICC's Government Securities Division (“GSD”) and Mortgage Backed Securities Division (“MBSD”) rules will be changed in the following areas:
Prior to this rule change, GSD's rules required U.S. applicants for GSD membership to submit annual audited financial statements for the preceding year and non-U.S. applicants to submit annual audited financial statements for the preceding three years. MBSD's rules used to require U.S. and non-U.S. membership applicants to submit annual audited financial statements for the preceding year.
Under the rule change, FICC will amend both divisions' rules to require GSD netting applicants and MBSD clearing applicants to submit two years of annual audited financial statements. However, if an applicant or member has not been in business for two years (
1. If an applicant is newly formed and does not have annual audited financial statements, the applicant shall be required to submit pro forma financial statements and, if it has filed any regulatory reports, such regulatory reports.
2. If an applicant is newly formed as a result of a merger (or similar corporate transaction), the applicant shall be required to submit pro forma financial statements, the most recent annual audited financial statement of its predecessor firm if such statement is available, and if it has filed regulatory reports, such regulatory reports.
3. If the applicant does not have its own audited financial statements but is consolidated in its parent's audited financial statements and it has filed its own regulatory reports, the applicant shall be required to submit such regulatory reports in addition to the consolidated financial statements.
FICC believes the proposed rule change permitting less than two years of annual audited financial statements or unaudited pro forma financial statements is necessary and appropriate in order to accommodate entities that are newly-formed and those that are created as a result of a merger of existing entities or other similar corporate transaction. First, firms that are newly-formed do not have audited financials and in some instances can only provide pro forma financial statements. Second, the GSD's rules already contemplate the admission of entities with little or no business history, which often are of equal or even greater credit quality than more established entities. For example, GSD's rules provide that a netting applicant must have an established,
Prior to this rule change, the rules of both FICC divisions specified that all required audited financial statements be prepared at the applicant or member level. However, some entities do not prepare their own audited financial statements. Their financial status is included in audited consolidated financial statements of a parent company.
FICC will amend both divisions' rules to permit the submission of audited consolidated financial statements in situations where audited financial statements are not prepared at the applicant or member level. First, many members are not required to prepare their own audited financial statements by their regulators and doing so would be very expensive. Second, FICC is comfortable in accepting audited consolidated financial statements because FICC is able to obtain information regarding an applicant's or member's financial status through interim financial data on the applicant or member itself. This interim data is on the applicant or member firm level and is obtained from regulatory reports filed by the applicant or member itself or unaudited financial reports prepared internally by the applicant or member. FICC staff compares data from the applicable interim statement to the audited financial statement or applicable audited consolidated financial statement. If there are discrepancies, the firm would be required to supply FICC with an acceptable explanation. In addition, in instances where the member or applicant is unregulated and regulatory reports are thus not available, FICC may request consolidating financial statements from the member firm, which will show the financials of the entities that were included in the audited consolidated financial statement.
In addition to this change, FICC will make a technical change to the term “financial statements” in GSD Rule 2, Section 7, to update the current reference to “shareholder's equity” to “owner's equity” to encompass those entities that do not have shareholders.
Before this rule change, GSD's rules stated that a comparison-only applicant must be in compliance with the capital requirements imposed by its designated examining authority, appropriate regulatory agency, or other examining authority or regulator, and any other self-regulatory organizations to which it is subject by statute, regulation, or agreement. FICC will eliminate this requirement because comparison-only membership does not present FICC with any credit or financial risk since FICC does not guarantee that service.
GSD's rules used to provide that if an approved letter of credit issuer was a non-U.S. bank acting through a branch or agency in the U.S., it was required to provide FICC with a “guarantee of performance” of such branch or agency deemed sufficient by FICC. FICC believes that the current language needs to be clarified because it was never meant to require a financial guarantee. FICC believes that it is not appropriate to require the head office of an approved letter of credit issuer to provide a financial guarantee for its branch or agency, given that the latter is simply an “arm” of the head office itself and not a separate legal entity.
Accordingly, FICC will change the current language to specify that non-U.S. banks wishing to become approved letter of credit issuers must have language in their opinion of counsel indicating that the head office is “ultimately responsible” for the credit obligation of the branch or agency. This language is already contained in the pro forma legal opinions that are part of the FICC letter of credit issuer application.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in its custody or control or for which it is responsible.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to establish fees for transactions in options on the Standard & Poor's Depository Receipts,
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to establish fees for transactions in options on Standard & Poor's Depository Receipts
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties with respect to this proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an E-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2005-02. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commissions Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On September 28, 2004, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), through its subsidiary, the Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (“Nasdaq”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The filing establishes a fee schedule for NYSE issuers that chose to dually list on Nasdaq during Nasdaq's initial pilot, January 12, 2004, to December 31, 2004. The annual listing fee for dually listed issuers will be $15,000. It will apply to NYSE issuers that are currently dually listed, as well as issuers who choose to do so in the future. Nasdaq will use the fee to support the cost of issuer services, including regulatory oversight and to fund future product and service investments.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered securities association
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On September 20, 2004, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (“Nasdaq”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Pursuant to this proposed rule change, Nasdaq will eliminate entry and application fees for exchange issuers that transfer their listing to Nasdaq on or after September 17, 2004. For issuers that have paid these fees, Nasdaq will refund the money. These issuers will be subject to the same level of annual fees and listing of additional shares fees as other Nasdaq issuers. Nasdaq states that it does not anticipate that a large number of issuers will change their listing market,
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered securities association
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On October 22, 2004, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX” or “Exchange”), through its wholly owned subsidiary PCX Equities, Inc. (“PCXE”) submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange.
Further, the Commission recognizes that the Exchange has represented that the PCX Market Management staff member will be able to monitor the quoting and trading activity of its Users
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages that will require clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. The information collection packages that may be included in this notice are for revisions to OMB-approved information collections and extensions (no change) of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and on ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments and recommendations regarding the information collection(s) should be submitted to the OMB Desk Officer and the SSA Reports Clearance Officer. The information can be mailed and/or faxed to the individuals at the addresses and fax numbers listed below:
(OMB) Office of Management and Budget, Fax: 202-395-6974.
(SSA) Social Security Administration, DCFAM, Attn: Reports Clearance Officer, 1338 Annex Building, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235; Fax: 410-965-6400.
I. The information collections listed below are pending at SSA and will be submitted to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. Therefore, your comments should be submitted to SSA within 60 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain copies of the collection instruments by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454 or by writing to the address listed above.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
II. The information collections listed below have been submitted to OMB for clearance. Your comments on the information collections would be most useful if received by OMB and SSA within 30 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain a copy of the OMB clearance package by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454, or by writing to the address listed above.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Listing of Impairments (the listings), part 404, subpart P, appendix I, describes for each of the major body systems, impairments which are severe enough to prevent an individual from doing any gainful activity. As part of the listings, we provide an introductory text, which identifies specific requirements that affect the body system, such as documentation requirements and other factors that must be considered when evaluating impairments within that body system. These can include requirements for medical and other evidence. This clearance request covers sections in the following listings that contain information collection requirements: The regulations for the musculoskeletal body system contain reporting requirements at sections 1.00B, 1.00C, 1.00D, 1.00E, 1.00H, 1.00I, 1.00J, 1.00K, 1.00P, 14.09A, 101.00B, 101.00C, 101.00D, 101.00E, 101.00H, 101.00I, 101.00J, 101.00P, and 114.09A. The regulations for the cardiovascular body system contain reporting requirements at sections 4.00B, 4.00C, 4.00D, 4.00E, 4.00F, 4.00G, 4.02A, 104.00B, 104.00C, 104.00E, and 104.06. The regulations for the genitourinary body system contain reporting requirements at sections 6.00C, 6.00E, 6.00G, 106.00C, 106.00E, and 106.00G. The regulations for the skin body system contain reporting requirements at sections 8.00C, 8.00D, 108.00B, 108.00C, and 108.00D. The regulations for the multiple body system contain reporting requirements at sections 10.00B, 10.00C, 110.00B, and 110.00C. The regulations for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) contain reporting requirements at sections 11.00G and 11.10. The regulations for the malignant neoplastic diseases contain reporting requirements at 13.00B, 13.00D, 13.00E, 13.00G, 13.00K, 113.00B, 113.00D, 113.00E, 113.00G, and 113.00K.
The medical evidence documentation described in the listings is used by State DDSs to assess the alleged disability. The information, together with other evidence, is used to determine if an individual claiming disability benefits has an impairment that meets severity and duration requirements. The
9.
10.
Section 303 of the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (SSPA) provides for a 5-year demonstration project to be conducted by SSA under which the direct payment of SSA approved fees is extended to certain non-attorney claimant representatives. Under the SSPA, to be eligible for direct payment of fees, a non-attorney representative must fulfill the following statutory requirements: (1) Possess a bachelors degree or have equivalent qualifications derived from training and work experience; (2) pass an examination that tests knowledge of the relevant provisions of the Social Security Act; (3) secure professional liability insurance or equivalent insurance; (4) pass a criminal background check; and (5) demonstrate completion of relevant continuing education courses. Through the services of a private contractor, SSA must collect the requested information to determine if a non-attorney representative has met the statutory requirements to be eligible for direct payment of fees for his or her claimant representation services. The information collection is needed to comply with the legislation. The respondents are non-attorney representatives who apply for direct payment of fees.
11.
12.
The form obtains information needed by the SSA review team (comprised of representatives from SSA's regional and field offices), and provides a basis for conducting the actual onsite review. In addition, the information is used in the preparation of the subsequent report of findings and recommendations, which is issued to the institutions.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) received petitions in September 2004 to review certain practices in certain beneficiary developing countries to determine whether such countries are in compliance with the ATPA eligibility criteria. In a November 15, 2004 notice, USTR published a list of responsive petitions that were accepted for review. This notice specifies the results of the preliminary review of those petitions as well as the status of the petitions filed in 2003 that have remained under review.
Bennett M. Harman, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Latin America, at (202) 395-9446.
The ATPA (19 U.S.C. 3201
In a
In a
With respect to the remaining 2004 petitions, the TPSC is modifying the schedule for this review, in accordance with 15 CFR 2016.2(b). The results will be announced on or about May 31, 2005. The TPSC is similarly modifying the date of the announcement of the results of preliminary review for the remaining 2003 petitions to May 31, 2005. Following is the list of all petitions that remain under review:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of intent.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an environmental impact statement will be prepared for proposed improvements to freight transportation to and from Middlebury, Vermont.
Rob Sikora, Environmental Program Manager, Federal Highway Administration, P.O. Box 568, Montpelier, Vermont 05601. Telephone: 802-828-4573.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans), will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposal to improve the transportation of large amounts of industrial materials to and from Middlebury along the U.S. Route 7 corridor.
Improvements in the corridor are considered necessary to provide for existing and projected movement of freight to and from Middlebury via U.S. Route 7. Alternatives under consideration include (1) taking no action; (2) improving existing U.S. Route 7; and (3) adding a new rail line with associated connector tracks and access roads. Incorporated into and studied with the various build alternatives will be design variations of grade and alignment.
Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and to private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have an interest in this proposal. A series of public meetings will be held in Middlebury and other communities along Route 7. In addition, a public hearing will be held. Public notice will be given of the time and place of the meetings and hearing. The draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearing. No formal scoping meeting is planned at this time.
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of intent.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an environmental impact statement will be prepared for the proposed extension of Independence Boulevard in New Hanover County, North Carolina.
John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, 310 New Bern Avenue, Ste 410, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1418, Telephone: (919) 856-4346.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Transportation, will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on a proposal to provide an extension to Independence Boulevard in New Hanover County, North Carolina. The proposed improvement would involve the extension of Independence Boulevard as an urban boulevard with a grass median and partially controlled access between Randall Parkway and Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway for a distance of about 2 miles.
Improvements to the corridor are considered necessary to provide for the existing and projected traffic demand. Also, included in this proposal is the potential construction of a partial cloverleaf interchange at Princess Place (with ramps and loops in the southwest and northeast quadrants, and spanning the CSX Railroad crossing). A trumpet interchange at Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway may also be necessary. Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and to private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have interest in this proposal. Public meetings will be held in Wilmington, North Carolina throughout the development of the EIS. In addition, a public hearing will be held. Public notice will be given of the time and place of the meetings and
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above.
10 a.m., January 19, 2005.
The Board's Hearing Room, Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423.
The Board will meet to discuss among themselves the following agenda items. Although the conference is open for public observation, no public participation is permitted.
STB Docket No. 42057,
STB Docket No. AB-156 (Sub-No. 25X),
Embraced case: STB Finance Docket No. 34561,
Embraced case: STB Finance Docket No. 34562,
STB Finance Docket No. 33388 (Sub-No. 95),
Embraced case: STB Finance Docket No. 33388 (Sub-No. 96),
Embraced case: STB Finance Docket No. 33388 (Sub-No. 97),
Embraced case: STB Finance Docket No. 33388 (Sub-No. 98),
Embraced case: STB Finance Docket No. 33388 (Sub-No. 99),
Embraced case: STB Finance Docket No. 32516 (Sub-No. 1),
Embraced case: STB Finance Docket No. 32525 (Sub-No. 1),
STB Finance Docket No. 34483,
STB Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 43),
STB Finance Docket No. 34633,
STB Docket No. AB-444 (Sub-No. 1X),
STB Docket No. AB-68 (Sub-No. 4X),
STB Docket No. AB-882,
Embraced case: STB Docket No. AB-884,
STB Ex Parte No. 656,
A. Dennis Watson, Office of Congressional and Public Services, Telephone: (202) 565-1596, FIRS: 1-800-877-8339.
Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR) has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1152 subpart F—
NSR has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) any overhead traffic can be rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a State or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication) and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the discontinuance shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on February 17, 2005,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to NSR's representative: James R. Paschall, General Attorney, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Three Commercial Place, Norfolk, VA 23510.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
The Department of the Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
1. As of January 14, 2005, public notice is hereby given that all outstanding 10 percent Treasury Bonds of 2005-10 (CUSIP No. 912810 CP 1) dated May 15, 1980, due May 15, 2010, are hereby called for redemption at par on May 15, 2005, on which date interest on such bonds will cease.
2. Full information regarding the presentation and surrender of such bonds held in coupon and registered form for redemption under this call will be found in Department of the Treasury Circular No. 300 dated March 4, 1973, as amended (31 CFR part 306), and from the Definitives Section of the Bureau of the Public Debt (telephone (304) 480-7936), and on the Bureau of the Public Debt's Web site,
3. Redemption payments for such bonds held in book-entry form, whether on the books of the Federal Reserve Banks or in Treasury-Direct accounts, will be made automatically on May 15, 2005.
In notice document 04-27969 beginning on page 76798 in the issue of Wednesday, December 22, 2004, make the following correction:
On page 76801, in the second column, in the first paragraph, in the last line, “January 12, 2005” should read “January 6, 2005.”
In rule document 05-528 beginning on page 1812 in the issue of Tuesday, January 11, 2005 make the following corrections:
1. On page 1813, in the first column, in §13.16(a), in the 2nd line from the bottom, “40 U.S.C. 46301(d)(2)” should read, “49 U.S.C. 46301(d)(2)”.
2. On the same page, in the third column, after §13.16(d)(4), in the next line, paragraph “(3)” should read “(e)”.