Aging Administration
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Aging Administration
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Labor Statistics Bureau
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Federal Aviation Administration
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. This AD requires repetitive high frequency eddy current inspections and detailed inspections of the left and right butt line (BL) 25 vertical chords for cracks, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD is prompted by findings of cracks in the fillet radii of the left and right BL 25 vertical chords common to the nose wheel well bulkhead at station 287. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the left and right BL 25 vertical chords, which could grow downward into a critical area that serves as a primary load path for the nose landing gear (NLG) and result in the collapse of the NLG during landing.
This AD becomes effective March 1, 2005.
The incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 1, 2005.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. You can examine this information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
The AD docket contains the proposed AD, comments, and any final disposition. You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at
The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an AD for certain Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. That action, published in the
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been submitted on the proposed AD.
One commenter, the manufacturer, requests that we include the line numbers of the affected airplanes in the applicability of this AD. The commenter states that including this information (line numbers 1 through 757 inclusive) will help operators quickly identify the airplanes affected by this AD.
While we agree with the intent of the request, we do not agree that the line numbers should be included in the applicability of the final rule. Although the commenter has provided the correct line numbers for the affected airplanes in this AD, we have determined, in coordination with the manufacturer, that we should use the manufacturer-assigned, variable numbers in the applicability of an AD. In the past, using line numbers has caused errors in the effectivity of the service bulletin, and consequently in the applicability of the AD, because the manufacturer's database generates the list of affected airplanes by variable number. To eliminate these errors and the additional work in revising a service bulletin, the manufacturer has chosen to identify affected airplanes by variable number in future service bulletins. We anticipate this will also save time and work for operators and us because fewer ADs will be superseded for applicability errors. Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary in this regard.
The same commenter also requests that we update the Discussion section of the proposed AD. The commenter states that, since issuance of the proposed AD, three operators have also reported finding cracks on the vertical chords of one Boeing Model 767-200 series airplane and several Model 767-300 series airplanes.
We do not agree with the request, since the Discussion section of a proposed AD is not included in a final rule. We thank the commenter for the information, but no change is necessary to this final rule.
Boeing has received a Delegation Option Authorization (DOA). We have revised this final rule to delegate the authority to approve an alternative method of compliance for any repair required by this AD to the Authorized Representative for the Boeing DOA Organization rather than the Designated Engineering Representative (DER).
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments that have been submitted, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
This AD affects about 743 airplanes worldwide and 312 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions take about 8 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. No parts are required. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $162,240, or $520 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
This rulemaking is promulgated 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 AD.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective March 1, 2005.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes, certificated in any category; as listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0113, dated February 26, 2004.
(d) This AD was prompted by findings of cracks in the fillet radii of the left and right butt line (BL) 25 vertical chords common to the nose wheel well bulkhead at station 287. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the left and right BL 25 vertical chords, which could grow downward into a critical area that serves as a primary load path for the nose landing gear (NLG) and result in the collapse of the NLG during landing.
(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) The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0113, dated February 26, 2004.
(g) At the later of the compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: Do a high frequency eddy current inspection and a detailed inspection of the left and right BL 25 vertical chords common to the nose wheel well bulkhead at station 287 for cracks, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(1) Within 72 months since the date of issuance of the original Airworthiness Certificate or the date of issuance of the original Export Certificate of Airworthiness.
(2) Within 18 months after the effective date 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.”
(h) For any BL 25 vertical chord in which no crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Thereafter at intervals not to exceed 48 months, repeat the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for any BL 25 vertical chord that has not been repaired according to paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD.
(i) If any crack is found on any BL 25 vertical chord during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, and the crack extends below WL 159: Before further flight, repair according to a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or according to data meeting the certification basis of the airplane 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 approval must specifically reference this AD.
(j) If any crack is found in any BL 25 vertical chord during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, and the crack does not extend below WL 159: Before further flight, repair any damaged BL 25 vertical chord in accordance with the service bulletin.
(k) Repair of any BL 25 vertical chord in accordance with paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD, as applicable, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD for the repaired vertical chord only. If both the left and right BL 25 vertical chords are repaired as required by paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD, as applicable, no more work is required by this AD.
(l)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the
(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.
(m) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0113, dated February 26, 2004, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approves the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. For copies of the service information, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. For information on the availability of this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), call (202) 741-6030, or go to
You may view the AD docket at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations.
This document contains final regulations that would modify the circumstances under which certain forms of distribution previously available are permitted to be eliminated from qualified defined contribution plans. These final regulations affect qualified retirement plan sponsors, administrators, and participants.
These regulations are effective January 25, 2005.
Vernon S. Carter, 202-622-6060 (not a toll free number).
This document contains final amendments to 26 CFR part 1 under section 411(d)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code) as amended by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) (115 Stat. 117).
Section 411(d)(6)(A) of the Code generally provides that a plan will not be treated as satisfying the requirements of section 411 if the accrued benefit of a participant is decreased by a plan amendment. Section 411(d)(6)(B) prior to amendment by EGTRRA provided that an amendment is treated as reducing an accrued benefit if, with respect to benefits accrued before the amendment is adopted, the amendment has the effect of either eliminating or reducing an early retirement benefit or a retirement-type subsidy, or, except as provided by regulations, eliminating an optional form of benefit.
The IRS published TD 8900 in the
Section 1.411(d)-4, Q&A-2(e)(1), provides that a defined contribution plan may be amended to eliminate or restrict a participant's right to receive payment of accrued benefits under a particular optional form of benefit without violating the section 411(d)(6) anti-cutback rules if, once the plan amendment takes effect for a participant, the alternative forms of payment that remain available to the participant include payment in a single-sum distribution form that is otherwise identical to the eliminated or restricted optional form of benefit. The amendment cannot apply to a participant for any distribution with an annuity starting date before the earlier of the 90th day after the participant receives a summary that reflects the plan amendment and that satisfies Department of Labor's requirements for a summary of material modifications under 29 CFR 2520.104b-3, or the first day of the second plan year following the plan year in which the amendment is adopted. Section 1.411(d)-4, Q&A-2(e)(2), provides that a single-sum distribution form is otherwise identical to the optional form of benefit that is being eliminated or restricted only if it is identical in all respects (or would be identical except that it provides greater rights to the participant), except for the timing of payments after commencement. A single-sum distribution form is not otherwise identical to a specified installment form of benefit if the single-sum form:
• Is not available for distribution on any date on which the installment form could have commenced;
• Is not available in the same medium as the installment form; or
• Imposes any additional condition of eligibility.
Further, an otherwise identical distribution form need not retain any rights or features of the eliminated or restricted optional form of benefit to the extent those rights or features would not be protected from elimination under the anti-cutback rules. The single-sum distribution form would not, however, be disqualified from being an otherwise identical distribution form if the single-sum form provides greater rights to participants than did the eliminated or restricted optional form of benefit.
Section 645(a)(1) of EGTRRA added section 411(d)(6)(E), which provides that, except to the extent provided in regulations, a defined contribution plan is not treated as reducing a participant's accrued benefit where a plan amendment eliminates a form of distribution previously available under the plan if a single-sum distribution is available to the participant at the same time as the form of distribution eliminated by the amendment and the single-sum distribution is based on the same or greater portion of the participant's account as the form of distribution eliminated by the amendment. Thus, section 411(d)(6)(E) includes conditions that are similar to those in existing § 1.411(d)-4, Q&A-2(e), but without the advance notice condition.
On July 8, 2003, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-112039-03) was published in the
These final regulations retain the general structure and much of the substance of the proposed regulations, including an example illustrating the provisions. Some changes have been made in connection with a specific recommendation for modification and clarification. The comments received in response to the proposed regulations are generally summarized below.
Two commentators were concerned that, following the elimination of the 90-day notice requirement, plan participants who counted on being able to retire with an annuity could discover that option is suddenly gone. The commentators argued that the participant may have made plans based on the expectation of receiving an annuity, and that, although participants can purchase annuities with their lump sums, they may find that annuities purchased outside the plan cost more or pay lower amounts than what they were expecting from the plan. The commentators recommended that, to the extent plan sponsors adopt amendments that terminate an annuity option, those plan sponsors should allow participants within 90 days of retiring at the time of the amendment to be permitted to elect that annuity.
The legislative history to section 645(a)(1) of EGTRRA shows that Congress was aware of the notice requirement in existing § 1.411(d)-4, Q&A-2(e)(2), and adopted all of the same provisions in section 411(d)(6)(E) as are in existing § 1.411(d)-4, Q&A-2(e)(2), except for the notice requirement. See Conference Report No. 107-84, 107th Cong., 1st Session 253-254. Accordingly, these final regulations adopt the amendments in the proposed regulation. The regulations retain the rules under which a defined contribution plan may be amended to eliminate or restrict a participant's right to receive payment of accrued benefits under a particular optional form of benefit without violating the section 411(d)(6) anti-cutback rules if, once the plan amendment takes effect for a participant, the alternative forms of payment that remain available to the participant include payment in a single-sum distribution. The regulations clarify that such an amendment can apply only to distributions with annuity starting dates after the amendment is adopted and, therefore, cannot apply to distributions that have already commenced. However, these final regulations remove the 90-day notice condition previously applicable to these plan amendments.
One commentator commented on the example in § 1.411(d)-4, Q&A-2(e), of the proposed regulations. The commentator stated it is not clear from the example why the amendment does not apply to P (the participant in the Plan) if P elects to have annuity payments begin before July 1, 2004. The commentator stated that the confusion may result because the example provided that the amendment is adopted on May 2, 2004, but does not provide when the amendment is effective. The example has been revised to reflect the comment.
Under section 101 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978 (43 FR 47713), the Secretary of the Treasury has interpretive jurisdiction over the subject matter addressed in these regulations for purposes of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Section 204(g)(2) of ERISA, as amended by EGTRRA, provides a parallel rule to section 411(d)(6)(E) of the Code that applies under Title I of ERISA, and authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to provide exception to this parallel ERISA requirement. Therefore, regulations issued under section 411(d)(6)(E) of the Code apply for purposes of the parallel requirements of section 204(g)(2) of ERISA, as well as for section 411(d)(6)(E) of the Code.
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulation does not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
The principal author of these regulations is Vernon S. Carter of the Office of the Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
A-2: * * *
(e)
(2)
(3)
(i) P is a participant in Plan M, a qualified profit-sharing plan with a calendar plan year that is invested in mutual funds. The distribution forms available to P under Plan M include a distribution of P's vested account balance under Plan M in the form of distribution of various annuity contract forms (including a single life annuity and a joint and survivor annuity). The annuity payments under the annuity contract forms begin as of the first day of the month following P's severance from employment (or as of the first day of any subsequent month, subject to the requirements of section 401(a)(9)). P has not previously elected payment of benefits in the form of a life annuity, and Plan M is not a direct or indirect transferee of any plan that is a defined benefit plan or a defined contribution plan that is subject to section 412. Distributions on the death of a participant are made in accordance with plan provisions that comply with section 401(a)(11)(B)(iii)(I). On September 2, 2004, Plan M is amended so that, effective for payments that begin on or after November 1, 2004, P is no longer entitled to any distribution in the form of the distribution of an annuity contract. However, after the amendment is effective, P is entitled to receive a single-sum cash distribution of P's vested account balance under Plan M payable as of the first day of the month following P's severance from employment (or as of the first day of any subsequent month, subject to the requirements of section 401(a)(9)).
(ii) Plan M does not violate the requirements of section 411(d)(6) (or section 401(a)(11)) merely because, as of November 1, 2004, the plan amendment has eliminated P's option to receive a distribution in any of the various annuity contract forms previously available.
(4)
National Labor Relations Board.
Final rule.
On July 22, 2004 the National Labor Relations Board published in the
March 1, 2005.
Lester A. Heltzer, Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1099 14th Street, NW., Room 11600, Washington, DC 20570. Telephone: (202) 273-1067.
Section 102.62 of the Board's Rules and Regulations currently provides two kinds of “consent” election procedures. Under both procedures, the parties must stipulate with respect to jurisdictional facts, labor organization status, appropriate unit description, and classifications of employees included and excluded. The parties must also agree to the time, place and other election details. Under Sec. 102.62(a), the parties agree that postelection disputes will be resolved with finality by the Regional Director. Under Sec. 102.62(b), postelection disputes are resolved pursuant to Sec. 102.69, with the parties retaining the right to file exceptions or requests for review with the Board. The Board is revising its Rules and Regulations to create a new, voluntary procedure whereby the parties can agree to the conduct of an election with disputed preelection and postelection matters to be resolved with finality by the Regional Director. The new rule also amends Sec. 102.62(a) to provide that the decision of the Regional Director in a postelection proceeding has the same force and effect as that of the Board “in that case.” The addition of this language makes it clear that the Regional Director's decision will not be regarded as Board precedent in future cases. Identical language is present in the revised Sec. 102.62(c). In addition to revisions to Sec. 102.62 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Board also has revised its Statements of Procedures, Sec. 101.19 and 101.28, to reflect the revisions to Sec. 102.62 in the description of Board processing of union deauthorization elections (Sec. 101.28) and all other elections (Sec. 101.19).
Under the new procedures, after the filing of a petition supported by the requisite showing of interest, an employer and individual or labor organization can voluntarily enter into an agreement under which the Regional Director will resolve with finality disputed pre- and postelection issues and issue a certification of representative or results. If the parties voluntarily agree to utilize this new procedure they will be assured of a more expeditious and final resolution of their question concerning representation by a Regional Director, who will act in a neutral, expert, and conclusive fashion. Although the Agency decided to give notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to these rule changes, the changes involve rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice and thus no notice of proposed rulemaking was required under section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). Accordingly, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601), does not apply to these rule changes.
Administrative practice and procedure, Labor management relations.
Section 6 National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 151, 156), and sec. 55(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 552(a)). Section 101.14 also issued under sec. 2112(a)(1) of Public Law 100-236, 28 U.S.C. 2112(a)(1).
The Board has devised and makes available to the parties three types of informal consent procedures through which representation issues can be resolved without recourse to formal procedures. These informal arrangements are commonly referred to as consent-election agreement followed by Regional Director's determination, stipulated election agreement followed by Board certification, and full consent agreement, in which the parties agree that all pre- and postelection disputes will be resolved with finality by the Regional Director. Forms for use in these informal procedures are available in the Regional Offices.
(c) The full consent-election agreement followed by the Regional Director's determination of representatives is another method of informal adjustment of representation cases.
(1) Under these terms the parties agree that if they are unable to informally resolve disputes arising with respect to the appropriate unit and other issues pertaining to the resolution of the question concerning representation; the payroll period to be used as the basis of eligibility to vote in an election, the place, date, and hours of balloting, or other details of the election, those issues will be presented to, and decided with finality by the Regional Director after a hearing conducted in a manner consistent with the procedures set forth in § 101.20.
(2) Upon the close of the hearing, the entire record in the case is forwarded to the Regional Director. The hearing officer also transmits an analysis of the issues and the evidence, but makes no recommendations as to resolution of the issues. All parties may file briefs with the Regional Director within 7 days after the close of the hearing. The parties may also request to be heard orally. After review of the entire case, the Regional Director issues a final decision, either dismissing the petition or directing that an election be held. In the latter event, the election is conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director in the manner already described in this section.
(3) All matters arising after the election, including determinative challenged ballots and objections to the conduct of the election shall be processed in a manner consistent with paragraphs (a)(4), (5), and (6) of this section.
(a) The Board makes available to the parties three types of informal consent procedures through which authorization issues can be resolved without resort to formal procedures. These informal agreements are commonly referred to as consent-election agreement followed by Regional Director's determination, stipulated election agreement followed by Board certification, and full consent-election agreement providing for the Regional Director's determination of both pre- and postelection matters. Forms for use in these informal procedures are available in the Regional Offices.
(b) The procedures to be used in connection with a consent-election agreement providing for the Regional Director's determination, a stipulated election agreement providing for Board certification, and the full consent-election agreement providing for the Regional Director's determination of both pre- and postelection matters are the same as those already described in subpart C of this part in connection with similar agreements in representation cases under section 9(c) of the Act, except that no provision is made for runoff elections.
Section 6, National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 151, of Information Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)), and section 552a(j) and (k) of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k). Sections 102.143 through 102.155 also issued under Section 504(c)(1) of the Equal Access to Justice Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 504(c)(1)).
(a) Where a petition has been duly filed, the employer and any individual or labor organizations representing a substantial number of employees involved may, with the approval of the Regional Director, enter into a consent-election agreement leading to a determination by the Regional Director of the facts ascertained after such consent election. Such agreement shall include a description of the appropriate unit, the time and place of holding the election, and the payroll period to be used in determining what employees within the appropriate unit shall be eligible to vote. Such consent election shall be conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director. The method of conducting such consent election shall be consistent with the method followed by the Regional Director in conducting elections pursuant to §§ 102.69 and 102.70 except that the rulings and determinations by the Regional Director of the results thereof shall be final, and the Regional Director shall issue to the parties a certification of the results of the election, including certifications of representative where appropriate, with the same force and effect, in that case, as if issued by the Board, provided further that rulings or determinations by the Regional Director in respect to any amendment of such certification shall also be final.
(c) Where a petition has been duly filed, the employer and any individual or labor organizations representing a substantial number of the employees involved may, with the approval of the Regional Director, enter into an agreement providing for a hearing pursuant to §§ 102.63, 102.64, 102.65, 102.66 and 102.67 to resolve any issue necessary to resolve the question concerning representation. Upon the conclusion of such a hearing, the Regional Director shall issue a Decision. The rulings and determinations by the Regional Director thereunder shall be final, with the same force and effect, in that case, as if issued by the Board. Any election ordered by the Regional Director shall be conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director. The method of conducting such consent election shall be consistent with the method followed by the Regional Director in conducting elections pursuant to §§ 102.69 and 102.70, except that the rulings and determinations by the Regional Director of the results thereof shall be final, and the Regional Director shall issue to the parties a certification of the results of the election, including certifications of representative where appropriate, with the same force and effect, in that case, as if issued by the Board, provided further that rulings or determinations by the Regional Director in respect to any amendment of such certification shall also be final.
By direction of the Board.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; notice of administrative change.
EPA is revising the format of 40 CFR part 52 for materials submitted by the State of Idaho that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The regulations affected by this format change have all been previously submitted by Idaho and approved by EPA.
This action is effective January 25, 2005.
SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following locations: US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics (OAWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B102, Washington, DC 20004; and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to
Donna Deneen at the above Region 10 address or at (206) 553-6706.
Throughout this document, wherever “we” or “our” is used it means the EPA.
This format revision will affect the “identification of plan” section of 40 CFR part 52, as well as the format of the SIP materials that will be available for public inspection at NARA; Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center; and the EPA Region 10 Office. The sections of 40 CFR part 52, pertaining to provisions promulgated by EPA or state-submitted materials not subject to IBR review, remain unchanged.
Each state has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The SIP is extensive, containing such elements as air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring network, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms.
Each SIP revision submitted by a state must undergo reasonable notice and public hearing at the state level, and SIPs submitted to EPA to attain or maintain the NAAQS must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, schedules and timetables for compliance.
EPA evaluates submitted SIPs to determine if they meet the Clean Air Act's requirements. If a SIP meets the Clean Air Act's requirements, EPA will approve the SIP. EPA's notice of approval is published in the
The full text of the state regulation approved by EPA is not reproduced in its entirety in 40 CFR part 52, but is incorporated by reference (“IBR”). This means that EPA has approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date. The public is referred to the location of the full text version should they want to know which measures are contained in a given SIP (see “I.F. Where You Can Find a Copy of the SIP Compilation”). The information provided allows EPA and the public to monitor the extent to which a state implements the SIP to attain and maintain the NAAQS and to take enforcement action if necessary.
The SIP is a living document which the state can revise as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the state. Therefore, EPA from time to time must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference Federally-approved SIPs.
EPA began the process of developing: (1) A revised SIP document for each state that would be incorporated by reference under the provisions of 1 CFR part 51; (2) a revised mechanism for announcing EPA approval of revisions to an applicable SIP and updating both the IBR document and the CFR; and (3) a revised format of the “identification of plan” sections for each applicable subpart to reflect these revised IBR procedures.
The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures, and “identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997,
The Federally-approved regulations and source-specific permits (entirely or portions thereof) submitted by each state agency have been organized by EPA into a SIP compilation. The SIP Compilation contains the updated regulations and source-specific requirements approved by EPA through previous rulemaking actions in the
Each compilation contains two parts. Part 1 contains the state regulations and Part 2 contains the source-specific requirements that have been approved as part of the SIP. Each part has a table of contents identifying each regulation or each source-specific requirement. The effective date in the tables indicates the date of the most recent revision to a particular regulation. The table of contents in the compilation corresponds to the table of contents published in 40 CFR part 52 for each state. The EPA Regional Offices have the primary
EPA Region 10 developed and will maintain the annually updated hard copy of the compilation for Idaho. The hard copy of the annually updated compilation will also be maintained at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room B-108 (Mail Code 6102T), 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; and NARA. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to
In order to better serve the public, EPA revised the organization of the “identification of plan” section and included additional information to clarify the enforceable elements of the SIP.
The revised identification of plan section contains five subsections:
(a) Purpose and scope;
(b) Incorporation by reference;
(c) EPA-approved regulations;
(d) EPA-approved source-specific requirements; and
(e) EPA-approved nonregulatory provisions such as transportation control measures, statutory provisions, control strategies, monitoring networks, etc.
All revisions to the applicable SIP become Federally enforceable as of the effective date of the revisions to paragraphs (c), (d) or (e) of the applicable identification of plan found in each subpart of 40 CFR part 52.
To facilitate enforcement of previously approved SIP provisions and to provide a smooth transition to the new SIP processing system, we are retaining the original identification of plan section (see 40 CFR 52.677). This section previously appeared in 40 CFR 52.670. After an initial two-year period, EPA will review its experience with the new system and its ability to enforce previously approved SIP measures, and will decide whether or not to retain the identification of plan appendices for some further period.
Today's action constitutes a “housekeeping” exercise to ensure that all previous revisions to the state SIP-approved regulations and source-specific requirements are accurately reflected in 40 CFR part 52. When EPA receives a formal SIP revision request, the Agency must publish the proposed revision in the
Note that the revisions in today's rule include State source-specific requirements that may no longer be appropriate for inclusion in the Idaho SIP. These permits, some of which were issued by the State as early as 1979, are listed in section (d) because EPA previously approved them as state source-specific requirements and they continue to be a part of the Federally-approved SIP until the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality submits a SIP revision meeting Clean Air Act requirements requesting that such permits be removed from the SIP and EPA approves the SIP revision. EPA does not have the authority to remove these permits in the absence of a demonstration that their removal would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, violate any prevention of significant deterioration increment or result in visibility impairment. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality may request removal by submitting such a demonstration to EPA as a SIP revision. EPA will take action on Idaho's request after providing for public comment.
EPA has determined that today's rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). Today's rule simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved State programs.
Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by updating citations.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute as indicated in the Supplementary Information section above, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Idaho SIP compilation had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for these “identification of plan” reorganization actions for Idaho.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a) This section identifies the original “Idaho Air Quality Implementation Plan” and all revisions submitted by Idaho that were federally approved prior to November 12, 2004.
(a) Purpose and scope. This section sets forth the applicable State implementation plan for Idaho under section 110 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, and 40 CFR part 51 to meet national ambient air quality standards.
(b) Incorporation by reference.
(1) Material listed in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section with an EPA approval date prior to November 12, 2004, was approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Material is incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval, and notice of any change in the material will be published in the
(2) EPA Region 10 certifies that the rules/regulations provided by EPA in the SIP compilation at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated State rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the State Implementation Plan as of November 12, 2004.
(3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be inspected at the Region 10 EPA Office at 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101; the EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Air Docket, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to
(c) EPA approved regulations.
(d) EPA-approved State Source-specific requirements.
(e) EPA Approved Nonregulatory provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Interim final rule and request for comments.
We are amending 42 CFR part 70 to establish vaccination clinics and a user fee in connection with the administration of vaccination services and vaccine. On December 7, 2004, HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson announced the purchase of 1.2 million doses of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) influenza vaccine, Fluarix, for distribution to areas most in need as determined by State public health authorities. The Fluarix vaccine has been approved in seventy-eight foreign countries, and FDA has recently reviewed extensive manufacturing and summary clinical information and conducted an inspection of the GSK manufacturing facility in Germany to determine that this vaccine, although not licensed in the United States, is suitable for use under an Investigational New Drug application (IND). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewed GSK's IND application as well as the clinical protocol and manufacturing data. CDC and CDC's Institutional Review Board approved the GSK flu vaccine response protocol including the informed consent document.
To ensure that the vaccine is properly administered to individuals identified to be most at risk and facilitate compliance with IND requirements, CDC is establishing vaccination clinics. CDC is proceeding without delay because of the unprecedented nature of this season's influenza vaccine shortage caused by contamination problems with Chiron Corporation's production facility in the United Kingdom, which effectively cut in half the expected United States supply of inactivated influenza vaccine. A user fee is being established in order to recoup the costs associated with administering the vaccine and for the vaccine itself. All individuals, other than those who are enrolled in Medicare Part B, will be required to pay the user fee.
This interim final rule is effective upon publication.
Written comments must be submitted on or before February 24, 2005. A final rule will be published after consideration of the comments.
Questions or comments concerning this interim final rule may be submitted to: Sheila Humphrey, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, Mailstop D-38, Atlanta, GA 30333; telephone 404-498-4025. Comments may be emailed to:
For information concerning program operations contact: Lisa Rotz, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, Mailstop C-18, Atlanta, GA 30333; telephone 404-639-0153.
Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264) authorizes the Secretary of HHS to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States or from one state or possession into any other state or possession. Influenza is a communicable disease caused by influenza viruses that spreads from person to person primarily through respiratory droplets of coughs and sneezes. Adults may be able to infect others 1 day before getting symptoms and up to 7 days after onset of illness. In light of the nature of the disease and the high mobility of the population, it is inevitable that influenza viruses will spread from individuals in one state to individuals of another state. The best way to prevent the transmission of influenza is for individuals to receive the influenza vaccine. Under the authority of section 361, the Secretary may establish vaccination clinics because vaccination with the influenza vaccine is the best way to prevent the transmission of influenza from one state into another.
Title V of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (31 U.S.C. 9701) (“IOAA”) provides general authority to Federal agencies to establish user fees through regulations. The IOAA sets parameters for any fee charged under its authority. Each charge shall be:
(1) Fair; and
(2) Based on—
(A) The costs to the Government;
(B) The value of the service or thing to the recipient;
(C) Public-policy or interest served; and
(D) Other relevant facts.
OMB Circular A-25 (“the Circular”) establishes general policy for implementing user fees, including criteria for determining amounts and exceptions, and guidelines for implementation. According to the Circular, its provisions must be applied to any fees collected pursuant to the IOAA authority.
The Circular states that “[a] user charge * * * will be assessed against each identifiable recipient for special benefits derived from Federal activities beyond those received by the general public.” The Circular gives three examples of when the special benefit is considered to accrue, including when a Government service: (a) Enables the beneficiary to obtain more immediate or substantial gains or values (which may or may not be measurable in monetary terms) than those that accrue to the general public (
The Circular sets forth guidelines for determining the amount of user charges to assess. When the Government is acting in its sovereign capacity, user charges should be sufficient to cover the full cost to the Federal Government of providing the service, resource, or good.
The Circular sets forth criteria for determining full cost. “Full cost includes all direct and indirect costs to any part of the Federal Government of providing a good, resource, or service.” Examples of these types of costs include, but are not limited to, direct and indirect personnel costs, including salaries and fringe benefits; physical overhead, consulting, and other indirect costs, including material and supply costs, utilities, insurance, travel, and rents; management and supervisory costs; and the costs of enforcement, collection, research, establishment of standards, and regulation. Full costs are
Agencies are responsible for the initiation and adoption of user charge schedules consistent with the guidance listed in the Circular. In doing so, agencies should identify the services and activities covered by the Circular; determine the extent of the special benefits provided; and apply the principles set forth in the Circular in determining full cost or market cost as appropriate.
Influenza, commonly known as “the flu,” is a contagious respiratory illness caused by a virus. In the United States, on average per year, 5% to 20% of the population gets the flu; more than 200,000 people are hospitalized from flu complications; and approximately 36,000 people die from flu. The best way to reduce the risk of getting the flu is to get a flu vaccine each fall.
On October 5, 2004, Chiron Corporation notified HHS, through the CDC, that none of its influenza vaccine would be available for distribution in the United States because of contamination problems with its facility in the United Kingdom. As a result, the expected supply of inactivated influenza vaccine (flu shot) was effectively cut in half. Increased production by MedImmune and Aventis alleviated some of the shortfall, but vaccine supplies were still cut by about 40% from expected levels. While the current influenza season has been mild so far, each influenza season is unpredictable with cases typically peaking between December and March. Therefore, the full severity of the 2004-2005 influenza season is not known.
In response to the vaccine shortage, CDC has announced priority groups that are more restricted than usual for vaccination with inactivated influenza vaccine for the 2004-2005 flu season. The priority groups, as they are called, number nearly 100 million persons and include the following persons:
• All children aged 6-23 months;
• Adults aged 65 years and older;
• Persons aged 2-64 years with underlying chronic medical conditions;
• Residents of nursing homes and long-term care facilities;
• Children aged 6 months-18 years on chronic aspirin therapy;
• All women who will be pregnant during the influenza season;
• Healthcare workers involved in direct patient care; and
• Household contacts of infants less than 6 months.
Effective January 3, 2005, in locations where state and local health authorities judge the vaccine supply to be adequate to meet the demand from groups on the restricted priority list, the priority groups for inactivated influenza vaccine may be expanded to include adults aged 50-64 years and out-of-home caregivers and household contacts of persons in high-risk groups. As demand for the vaccine evolves, CDC may further revise its recommended categories of individuals who should receive influenza vaccine, including the investigational vaccine.
On December 7, 2004, HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson announced the purchase of 1.2 million doses of GSK influenza vaccine, Fluarix, for distribution to areas most in need as determined by State public health authorities. Fluarix has not been licensed for use in the United States and will be administered under an IND. The Fluarix vaccine purchased by HHS has been approved in Germany and in about seventy-eight other countries worldwide, but is considered an investigational vaccine because it is not currently licensed by FDA.
Under an IND, patients who are offered the Fluarix vaccine must sign an informed consent form that provides important information on the risks and benefits, including potential adverse effects associated with the vaccine. The sponsor of this IND, GSK, is required to monitor the use of the investigational product, maintain adequate records, control the supply of the product, provide periodic reports to FDA regarding safety and other issues, and make sure informed consent is obtained from individuals before they receive the vaccine. FDA regulations in parts 312, 50, and 56 of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations help ensure FDA's ability to monitor clinical investigations. These regulations specify the clinical investigators' responsibilities while administering the investigational vaccine, as well as the responsibilities of the sponsor, or a contract research organization to which the sponsor has delegated responsibilities. Those regulations also specify FDA's role and authority during and after the administration phase, such as its role in reviewing VAERS reports. To ensure that the vaccine is properly administered to individuals identified to be most at risk and facilitate compliance with IND requirements, CDC is establishing influenza vaccination clinics. A user fee is being established in order to recoup the costs associated with administering the vaccine and for the vaccine itself. Under an IND, commercialization of an investigational product in a clinical trial is not permitted without the prior written approval of FDA, and then the sponsor may only charge a price necessary to recover the costs of manufacture, research, development, and handling of the investigational drug. 21 CFR 312.7. GSK has sought and been granted a waiver of this IND provision in order to provide Fluarix on an expedited basis. 21 CFR 312.10. In addition, FDA has granted a waiver to GSK and CDC under 21 CFR 312.10 to authorize the user fee charge for costs associated with administration of the Fluarix vaccine. All persons, other than those who are enrolled in Medicare Part B, will be required to pay the user fee. Under Title 18 of the Social Security Act, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services will reimburse CDC's contractor for the costs associated with administration of vaccine provided to individuals enrolled in Medicare Part B. For this reason, the user fee will not be applied to such individuals.
The user fee will cover the costs of the purchase of the Fluarix vaccine in addition to costs associated with administering the flu vaccine. The following is a list of services and activities that are covered by the user fee. Costs may be included in the user fee other than those listed here:
• Executing and administering the IND Influenza Vaccine Program according to the Protocol and Investigator's Handbook;
• Providing information to the participants about the program;
• Collecting information designated on the eligibility forms;
• Obtaining informed consent and collecting signed consent forms from eligible participants;
• Providing and administering vaccine to participants per protocol procedures;
• Tracking vaccine storage and accountability;
• Safely keeping and storing all funds collected via cash or check from IND participants;
• Ensuring the ability and capacity of the sites to correctly file and source IND documents and store them securely;
• Key punching program data at each vaccination site within two days of vaccinating participant(s) via CDC's web-accessed portal;
• Identifying any deviations from the program that might occur and documenting them accordingly;
• Providing all necessary data forms such as enrollment packets, which will also include an informed consent form and a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting Systems (VAERS) form, to participants;
• Keeping a roster of personnel who carried out activities related to the IND including: (1) Obtained informed consent, (2) confirmed eligibility and information on eligibility form, (3) administered vaccine, and (4) were responsible for storage and maintenance of vaccine at each clinic on the days of vaccination;
• Performing all provided services in accordance with industry standards, including sterile collection, handling and processing procedures, and hazardous medical waste guidelines; and
• Recording in the medical records any adverse reactions to vaccines in accordance with the VAERS protocol and to the FDA as required by law.
Individuals vaccinated for influenza obtain a health benefit compared to unvaccinated individuals. Influenza is a serious disease. In an average year, influenza infection is associated with 36,000 deaths (mostly among those aged 65 years or older) and more than 200,000 hospitalizations in the United States. The “flu season” in the United States is usually from November through April each year. During this time, flu viruses are circulating in the population. An annual flu vaccine is the best way to reduce the chances that an individual will get the flu. Individuals who get vaccinated after December can still benefit, if flu is present then or later in the community. The vaccine should continue to be offered to unvaccinated people throughout the flu season as long as vaccine is still available. Once vaccinated, the human body makes protective antibodies in about two weeks.
Individuals vaccinated with the Fluarix vaccine under CDC auspices obtain a special benefit not accruing to individuals in the general public who are not vaccinated. To assess the use of influenza vaccine this season, CDC temporarily added new questions to the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) beginning November 1, 2004. BRFSS is a monthly, ongoing telephone survey conducted by state health departments with assistance from CDC. Results of interviews conducted December 1-11, 2004 to assess vaccination during September 1-November 30, 2004 were published in the December 17 issue of CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports (MMWR).
Among adults in all vaccination priority groups, 34.8% reported receiving an influenza vaccination since September 1, 2004, compared with 4.4% of adults aged 18-64 years who were not in a priority group. Among all adults, coverage was highest among persons aged ≥65 at 51.1%, followed by 34.2% of health-care workers with patient contact, and 19.3% of high-risk adults aged 18-64 years. The percentage of persons reporting that they obtained an influenza vaccination September 1-November 30, 2004 is lower in each of these groups than the percentage who said they obtained a vaccination during the last influenza season (September 1, 2003-March 30, 2004).
Among adults in a vaccination priority group who have not received vaccine so far this season, 23.3% reported that they tried to obtain the vaccine and could not. Among persons aged 65 years and over, 32.5% reported that they tried to get the vaccine and could not. Among respondents with an unvaccinated child aged 6-23 months, 8.4% tried but could not obtain vaccination. For respondents with an unvaccinated eligible child aged 2-17 years, 14.4% reported that they tried but could not obtain vaccination. By establishing its own vaccination clinics, CDC will be able to help assure an adequate supply of the vaccine for individuals who choose to receive the Fluarix vaccine.
The cost to the Government of the user fee was determined in two parts. The first was for the cost of purchase of Fluarix by CDC at $7.00 per dose. The second part is for administration of the vaccine. CDC has entered into a contract with a Contract Research Organization to administer this vaccine. The costs associated with administration of the vaccine (see services and activities in section III above) were determined to be $18.00 per dose. The total cost to the Government and therefore the total user fee is determined to be $25.00 per dose.
We are proceeding without notice and comment rulemaking because we need to respond immediately to the unprecedented influenza vaccine shortage. Under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), we find good cause that prior notice and comment on this rule and a 30-day delay in effective date is impracticable and contrary to the public interest.
After November and December, many persons who should or want to receive influenza vaccine remain unvaccinated. To improve vaccine coverage, influenza vaccine should continue to be offered throughout the influenza season as long as vaccine supplies are available, including after influenza activity has been documented in the community. In the United States, seasonal influenza activity can begin to increase as early as October or November, but influenza activity has not reached peak levels in the majority of recent seasons until late December—early March, with seasons typically peaking most often in February. Therefore, although the timing of influenza activity can vary by region, vaccine administered after December on a national basis is likely to be beneficial in the majority of influenza seasons. Adults develop peak antibody protection against influenza infection 2 weeks after vaccination.
We expect influenza activity to continue and to increase over the next few to several weeks based on current surveillance data, especially the finding that only about 3.1% of respiratory specimens submitted to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS) for influenza testing are positive for influenza. Normally, at the peak of the influenza season over 20% of specimens submitted for influenza testing will test positive for influenza. However, we cannot predict when the season will peak or the duration of the season.
Accordingly, given the likelihood (based on historical evidence) that influenza cases may peak in February, obtaining prior notice and comment is impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would delay implementation of this rule to the extent that the vaccine may not be administered in time for it to be effective.
We have examined the impacts of the interim final rule under Executive Order 12866, which directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages, distributive impacts, and equity). We have determined that the rule is consistent with the principles set forth in the Executive Order, and that while it is a significant regulatory action it is not an “economically significant regulatory action” within the meaning of Executive Order 12866.
We have examined the impacts of the interim final rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Unless we certify that the rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant economic impact of a rule on small entities. The Regulatory Flexibility Analysis concludes that the rule is not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This regulatory action is not a major rule as defined by Sec. 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This interim final rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in cost or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
The interim final rule does not require any information collections. Therefore, we have not conducted a Paperwork Reduction Act analysis.
The interim final rule is excluded from NEPA's environmental review requirements, pursuant to 48 FR 9374-02 (National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Review of Program Actions), based on the determination that it will not normally significantly affect the human environment.
This interim final rule is in compliance with Executive Order 12988.
Communicable diseases, Public health, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel restrictions, User fees, Vaccination.
Secs. 215 and 311 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 216, 243); section 361-369, PHS Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 264-272); 31 U.S.C. 9701.
(a) The Director may establish vaccination clinics, through contract or otherwise, authorized to administer vaccines and/or other prophylaxis.
(b) A vaccination fee may be charged for individuals not enrolled in Medicare Part B to cover costs associated with administration of the vaccine and/or other prophylaxis. Such fee is to be collected at the time that the vaccine is administered. The vaccination fee, if imposed, is shown in the following table:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule; correction.
On May 22, 2001, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) adopted special regulations governing take of the threatened Preble's meadow jumping mouse
Effective May 20, 2004.
Division of Policy and Directives Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mail Stop 222, Arlington Square, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203.
Sara Prigan, Federal Register Liaison, Fish and Wildlife Service, at (703) 358-2508.
On May 22, 2001 (66 FR 28125), the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, or we) adopted special regulations at 50 CFR 17.40(l) governing take of the threatened Preble's meadow jumping mouse
Endangered and threatened species, Export, Import, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
(l) Preble's meadow jumping mouse
(1)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(A) Federal law, including Environmental Protection Agency label restrictions;
(B) Applicable State laws for noxious weed control;
(C) Applicable county bulletins;
(D) Herbicide application guidelines as prescribed by herbicide manufacturers; and
(E) Any future revisions to the authorities listed in paragraphs (l)(2)(vi)(A) through (D) of this section that apply to the herbicides proposed for use within the species' range.
(vii)
(A) Result in the annual loss of no more than
(B) Are performed within the historic footprint of the surface disturbance associated with ditches and related infrastructure, and
(C) Follow the Best Management Practices described in paragraphs (l)(2)(vii)(C)(
(
(
(
(D) All ditch maintenance activities carried out during the Preble's active season, May through October, should be conducted during daylight hours only.
(E) Ditch maintenance activities that would result in permanent or long-term loss of potential habitat that would not be considered normal or customary include replacement of existing infrastructure with components of substantially different materials and design, such as replacement of open ditches with pipeline or concrete-lined ditches, replacement of an existing gravel access road with a permanently paved road, or replacement of an earthen diversion structure with a rip-rap and concrete structure, and construction of new infrastructure or the movement of existing infrastructure to new locations, such as realignment of a ditch, building a new access road, or installation of new diversion works where none previously existed.
(3)
(i) Any manner of take not described under paragraph (l)(2) of this section.
(ii) No person may import or export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any Preble's meadow jumping mice.
(iii) No person, except for an authorized person, may possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any Preble's meadow jumping mice that have been taken illegally.
(4)
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules (Practices and Procedures in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions. Under agreement with the SLSMC, the SLSDC is proposing to amend the joint regulations by updating the Seaway Regulations and Rules in various categories. The proposed changes would update the following sections of the Regulation and Rules: Condition of Vessels; Preclearance and Security for Tolls; Seaway Navigation; Dangerous Cargo; Toll Assessment and Payment; Information and Reports; and General. These amendments are necessary to take account of updated procedures and/or technology and will enhance the safety of transits through the Seaway.
Any party wishing to present views on the proposed amendments may file comments with the Corporation on or before February 24, 2005.
You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket Number SLSDC 2005-20085] by any of the following methods:
• Web site:
• Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001.
• 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.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
Craig H. Middlebrook, Acting Chief Counsel, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-0091.
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules (Practices and Procedures in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions. Under agreement with the SLSMC, the SLSDC is proposing to amend the joint regulations by updating the Regulations and Rules in various categories. The proposed changes would update the following sections of the Regulation and Rules: Condition of Vessels; Preclearance and Security for Tolls; Seaway Navigation; Dangerous Cargo; Toll Assessment and Payment; Information and Reports; and General. These updates are necessary to take account of updated procedures and/or technology, which will enhance the safety of transits through the Seaway.
Under agreement with the SLSMC, the SLSDC is proposing to make several amendments to the joint regulations pertaining to various sections of the regulations. Many of these proposed changes are to clarify existing requirements in the regulations. Where new requirements or regulations are being proposed, an explanation for such a change is provided below.
The SLSDC is proposing to make several amendments to the joint regulations pertaining to the Condition of Vessels. Among the proposed changes include new requirements for certain types of vessels. For example, the SLSDC is proposing to add a new subsection to § 401.3, “Maximum vessel dimensions”, that would notify ships with a beam greater than 23.20 m that they may be subject to transit restrictions and/or delays during periods of ice cover. Larger beamed vessels often require special handling through the locks under ice conditions and this amendment will adequately notify such vessels that they may be subject to special restrictions or delays as a result of these special precautions.
Under § 401.4, “Maximum length and weight”, the SLSDC is proposing additional language that would clarify that a transit would be through the Seaway Locks. Also, under § 401.6, “Markings”, the SLSDC is proposing to add additional language that clarifies the type of marking needed for vessels with a bulbous bow that extends forward beyond its stem head.
The SLSDC is also proposing to amend § 401.7, “Fenders”, to require that permanent fenders be installed on vessels where any structural part of a ship protrudes so as to endanger Seaway installations. From the SLSDC's experience, permanent fenders provide
Under § 401.8, “Landing Booms”, the SLSDC is proposing to add a new subsection that would require that a ship's crew shall be adequately trained in the use of landing booms. For ships of more than 50m in overall length transiting the Seaway, they are to be equipped with landing booms, and it is essential for safety that their crews be trained in the proper use of this equipment. The SLSDC is also proposing adding a new subsection that would require vessels not equipped with landing booms to use the Seaway's tie-up service. The SLSDC recognizes that some vessels may not be equipped with landing booms and it provides this service for such vessels. Requiring them to use this service will help ensure that ships transit the Seaway safely.
The SLSDC is proposing to amend § 401.9, “Radiotelephone equipment”, to clarify that VHF (very high frequency) transmission positions are designated by channel numbers instead of by MHz (megahertz) frequencies.
Under § 401.10, “Mooring lines”, the SLSDC is proposing to add language that provides greater specificity on the type of mooring lines already required. Also, the SLSDC is proposing to add a requirement that will require that such lines be certified and that a test certificate shall be available on board for inspection for each mooring line. Moreover, the SLSDC proposes adding a new subsection that would not permit the use of nylon lines. Mooring lines are a vital equipment component used in the transit of vessels through a lock. The SLSDC believes that adding these requirements will help ensure the integrity and safety of these lines. In addition, the SLSDC has updated the table under this section to note the necessary breaking strengths for various mooring lines in terms of Metric Tons (M/T) instead of kiloNewtons (kN). This proposed change will simply adopt the currently accepted unit of measurement for breaking strength.
The SLSDC is proposing to amend § 401.11, “Fairleads”, to require that mooring lines and synthetic hawsers, where permitted, shall pass through not more than three inboard rollers that are fixed in place and equipped with horns to ensure that lines will not slip off when slackened. The SLSDC believes such a change is necessary to increase the safe handling of mooring lines.
Under § 401.12, “Minimum requirements—mooring lines and fairleads”, the SLSDC is proposing to amend the mooring line and fairlead requirements for various ship sizes. The first category of ship size would be for vessels of 80 meters or less instead of 40 meters; the next category would be for ships of more than 80 meters but not more than 100 meters, instead of between 40 and 60 meters; the next category would now be for vessels between 100 meters and 120 meters; and the final category would be for ships of more than 120 meters in length. For each of these categories, additional requirements are being proposed that will increase the safe handling of vessels through the locks. The table under this section would also be amended to reflect the changes being proposed.
The SLSDC is proposing to amend § 401.13, “Hand lines”, by adding language that requires that the ends of hand lines shall be back spliced or tapered and not be weighted or have knotted ends. These changes will greatly increase the likelihood that the Seaway's line handlers will be able to work safely with a ship's hand lines and not be injured in the process of tying up a vessel.
Under § 401.14, “Anchor marking buoys”, the SLSDC is proposing to amend this section to give ship owners more flexibility in making their anchor marking buoys highly visible. The current section requires that anchor buoys must be orange.
For § 401.16, “Propeller direction alarms”, and § 401.17, “Pitch indicators and alarms”, the SLSDC is proposing to amend these sections by also making them applicable to integrated tug and barge or articulated tug and barge units of combined 1,600 gross registered tons or more. This proposed change reflects the reality that tug and barge units of this size now use the Seaway with greater frequency. Requiring that such units possess this equipment will ensure their safe operation through the Seaway.
Under § 401.19, “Disposal and discharge systems”, the SLSDC is proposing to add language that clarifies which pertinent laws and regulations are Canadian and which are U.S. In addition, the SLSDC is proposing to add a requirement that would prohibit the burning of shipboard garbage in certain areas of the Seaway.
The SLSDC is proposing to amend § 401.20, “Automatic Identification System”, to add a provision that would require that the Minimum Keyboard Display (MKD) shall be located as close as possible to the primary conning position as possible and be visible. The Seaway has been using the Automatic Identification System as part of its Traffic Management System since 2002, and based on this experience, it has been determined that the MKD must be located close to the primary conning position and be visible to be most effective in ensuring the safe navigation of the vessel.
The SLSDC is proposing to make several amendments to the joint regulations regarding the Preclearance and Security for Tolls. Among the proposed amendments include proposed changes to § 401.22, “Preclearance of vessels”, that would change the minimum size of a pleasure craft not needing to apply for Preclearance from 317.5 tonnes to 300 gross registered tonnes (GRT) and would change the minimum size from 317.5 tonnes to 300 gross registered tonnage under which a non-commercial ship cannot apply for Preclearance and must transit as a pleasure craft. These slight increases in the minimum ship size are needed to bring these criteria in line with Great Lakes Pilotage Authority requirements (300 GRT).
Under § 401.24, “Application for Preclearance”, the SLSDC is proposing to amend the section by allowing ship representatives to obtain an application directly from the SLSDC and SLSMC joint Web site (
Under the SLSDC's regulations pertaining to Seaway Navigation, the SLSDC is proposing several amendments. For example, under § 401.30, “Ballast water and trim”, the SLSDC is proposing to add a requirement that no ship shall be accepted for transit whose trim by the stern exceeds 45.7 dm (decimeters), except under certain circumstances. This change would limit the length of a vessel permitted to transit the Seaway in terms of its trim by the stern. The upper limit permitted would be 45.7 dm,
Under § 401.34, “Vessels in tow”, language is being proposed that would make it clear that non-self-propelled vessels,
To enhance the safety of the navigation of vessels in certain areas of the Seaway, a requirement is being added to § 401.35, “Navigation underway”, to have a helmsman present in the wheelhouse of the ship in addition to either the master or certified deck officer. Having two qualified personnel in the wheelhouse will enhance the ability of the vessel to transit without incident in those areas of the Seaway where navigation is more difficult.
Under § 401.37 “Mooring at tie-up walls”, the proposal would delete the requirement that only Canadian or U.S. Coast Guard approved life jackets are permissible. This requirement is being deleted because not only these two countries have approval requirements for their lifejackets.
Under § 401.39, “Preparing mooring lines for passing through”, language is being proposed that would make it clear that winches must be capable of paying out at a minimum speed of 46 m (meters) per minute. The current language allows for winches paying out at a lower rate to be used as long as sufficient lengths of mooring lines are drawn off the winch drums and laid out on the deck. Such a procedure is no longer deemed optimally safe and requiring all winches to have this minimum pay out speed will maximize ship and line handling safety.
§ 401.42, “Passing hand lines”, paragraph (b), which prohibits the use of knotted or weighted hand lines in a lock chamber, is being deleted. Listing this prohibition here is redundant, as it would now be listed earlier in § 401.13(c).
To aid those leaving or boarding a vessel, a requirement under § 401.57, “Disembarking or boarding”, is being proposed that would require a member of the crew to assist persons disembarking or boarding vessels. Having a crew member assist in such instances greatly reduces the risk of injury.
Under § 401.58, “Pleasure craft scheduling”, an additional requirement is being added that would have every pleasure craft planning to transit to arrange for the transit by contacting the lock personnel using the direct-line phone at a pleasure craft dock and to make the lockage fee payment by purchasing a ticket using the automated ticket dispensers located at pleasure craft docks. This proposed new requirement will aid in the scheduling of pleasure craft transits and simplify the collection of fees.
The SLSDC is proposing to make several amendments to the joint regulations pertaining to Dangerous Cargo. Among the proposed changes include a change to § 401.68, “Explosives permit”, to require a permit for all ships carrying any quantity of explosives with a mass explosive risk, up to a maximum of 2 tonnes, under IMO Class 1, Division 1.1 and 1.5.
Under § 401.72, “Reporting—explosive and hazardous cargo vessels”, additional reporting requirements for ships carrying grain would be added. Specifically, every ship carrying grain that is under fumigation must declare to the nearest traffic control center the nature of the fumigant as well as which cargo holds are affected. Also, all ships carrying grain under fumigation would be required to file, prior to transiting, with the SLSMC a copy of its current load plan. These proposed changes will increase the ability of the Seaway to transit ships carrying grain safely.
Also under § 401.72, a proposed change would make it clear that the load plan should include the approximate total weight in metric tonnes or total volume in cubic meters. This added information will help ensure that the correct information is provided.
An additional requirement is being proposed to § 401.72 to require tankers in ballast to report the previous cargo of each cargo hold on a model of the current load plan for loaded vessels. Such information will assist the Seaway in ensuring the safe transit of such vessels through the waterway. Moreover, also, under the proposed changes to this section, a midships cross-section showing the double bottom tanks and ballast side tanks for tankers would be required.
Under § 401.72, the Seaway will now distribute a ship's load plan to all other Seaway Traffic Control Centers, and if any changes in stowage are made to the plan, including loading and discharging during a transit, the ship must submit an updated plan before departing from any port in the Seaway. Having current information of this type and ensuring that it is disseminated to all Vessel Traffic Control Centers will enhance the Seaway's ability to handle such ships safely in all sectors of the waterway.
Finally under § 401.72, a new subsection would be added to put users on notice that failure to comply with these requirements may result in unnecessary delays or transit refusal.
Under the SLSDC's regulations pertaining to Toll Assessment and Payment, the SLSDC is proposing several amendments. For example, under § 401.74, “Transit declaration”, a proposed change would make the Seaway Transit Declaration Form available only through the SLSMC's Cornwall office, and not the SLSDC's Massena office. The SLSMC is already the entity that receives these forms, and thus limiting the source of this form to the SLSMC's location in Cornwall will facilitate the Seaway's ability to keep these forms current and to collect them efficiently.
In § 401.75, “Payment of tolls”, additional language is being proposed that would require pleasure craft to transit each Canadian lock with prepaid tickets purchased in Canadian funds using automated credit card ticket dispensers located at pleasure craft docks. The use of these new dispensers will aid in the efficient transiting of pleasure craft by eliminating the need to collect fees in hard currency. At U.S. locks, the fee is paid in U.S. funds or the pre-established equivalent in Canadian funds.
The SLSDC is proposing to make several amendments to the joint regulations pertaining to Information and Reports. This includes a proposed change to § 401.79, “Advance notice of arrival, vessels requiring inspection”, the requirement for advance notice of arrival is being increased from 24 hours prior to all transits to 96 hours. This change is needed to comply with recent changes to the Canadian and U.S. laws requiring such notice.
A recommended change to § 401.81, “Reporting an accident”, would add language that all ships involved in an accident or a dangerous occurrence, must report the incident prior to departing the Seaway system. This language should remove any ambiguity about when such reporting is required.
Under the SLSDC's regulations pertaining to General matters, the SLSDC is proposing several amendments. Under § 401.93, “Access to Seaway property”, the reference to
In § 401.94, “Keeping copies of regulations”, an additional requirement is being proposed that would require ships transiting the Seaway to store permanently a duplicate set of the ship's Fire Control Plans in a prominently marked and weather-tight enclosure outside the deckhouse. Storing this document in this way will assist emergency response personnel who may be called on board to respond to a fire.
Under § 401.95, “Compliance with regulations”, an additional requirement has been added that would require the master or owner of a ship to ensure that all requirements of the Joint Practices and Procedures as well as Seaway Notices applicable to that ship are complied with. Adding Seaway Notices clarifies the responsibilities of the master and ship owner.
This proposed regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and therefore Executive Order 12866 does not apply and evaluation under the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures is not required.
I certify this proposed regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules primarily relate to commercial users of the Seaway, the vast majority of whom are foreign vessel operators. Therefore, any resulting costs will be borne mostly by foreign vessels.
This proposed regulation does not require an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (49 U.S.C. 4321,
The Corporation has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and has determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant a Federalism Assessment.
The Corporation has analyzed this proposed rule under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) and determined that it does not impose unfunded mandates on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector requiring a written statement of economic and regulatory alternatives.
This proposed regulation has been analyzed under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Office of Management and Budget review.
Hazardous materials transportation, Navigation (water), Penalties, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Waterways.
Accordingly, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation proposes to amend 33 CFR part 401, Seaway Regulations and Rules, as follows:
1. The authority citation for subpart A of Part 401 would continue to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 983(a) and 984(a)(4), as amended; 49 CFR 1.52, unless otherwise noted.
2. In § 401.3, a new paragraph (f) would be added to read as follows:
(f) Vessels with beams greater than 23.20 m may be subject to transit restrictions and/or delays during periods of ice cover.
3. Section 401.4 would be revised to read as follows:
No vessel of less than 6 m in overall length or 900 kg in weight shall transit through Seaway Locks.
4. In § 401.6, paragraph (c) would be revised to read as follows:
(c) Where a vessel's bulbous bow extends forward beyond her stem head, a symbol of a bulbous bow shall be marked above the vessel's summer load line draught mark in addition to a + symbol followed by a number indicating the total length in meters by which the bulbous bow projects beyond the stem.
5. In § 401.7, paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(2) introductory text would be revised, and paragraphs (b) and (c) would be added to read as follows:
(a) Where any structural part of a vessel protrudes so as to endanger Seaway installations, the vessel shall be equipped with permanent fenders—
(2) On special application, portable fenders, other than rope hawsers, may be allowed for a single transit if the portable fenders are—
(b) Tires shall not be used as fenders.
(c) On special application, ships of unusual design may be permitted to utilize temporary or permanent fenders not greater than 30 cm in thickness.
6. Section 401.8 would be revised to read as follows:
(a) Vessels of more than 50 m in overall length shall be equipped with at least one adequate landing boom on each side.
(b) Vessels' crews shall be adequately trained in the use of landing booms.
(c) Vessels not equipped with landing booms must use the Seaway's tie-up service at approach walls.
7. In § 401.9, paragraph (b)(2) would be revised to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) Be fitted to operate from the conning position in the wheelhouse and to communicate on channels 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 66a.
8. In § 401.10, paragraph (a)(3) and the table at the end of the section would be revised, and paragraphs (a)(6) and (d) would be added to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) Be fitted with a hand spliced eye or Flemish type mechanical spliced eye not less than 2.4 m long;
(6) Be certified and a test certificate for each mooring line shall be available on board for inspection.
(d) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, nylon line is not permitted.
9. In § 401.11, the introductory text and paragraph (b) would be revised to read as follows:
Mooring lines, and synthetic hawsers where permitted, shall:
(b) Pass through not more than three inboard rollers that are fixed in place and equipped with horns to ensure that liens will not slip off when slackened and provided with free-running sheaves or rollers; and
10. In § 401.12, paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4) introductory text, (a)(4)(i), (b), and the table at the end of the section would be revised to read as follows:
(1) Vessels of 80 m or less in overall length shall have at least three synthetic hawsers, two of which shall be independently power operated and one of which shall be hand held:
(i) One synthetic hawser shall lead forward from the break of the bow and one synthetic hawser shall lead astern from the quarter and be independently power operated by winches, capstans or windlasses and lead through closed chocks or fairleads acceptable to the Manager and the Corporation; and
(ii) One synthetic hawser shall be hand held and lead astern from the break of the bow through closed chocks to suitable mooring bitts on deck.
(2) Vessels of more than 80 m but not more than 100 m in overall length shall have four synthetic hawsers, of which three shall be independently power operated by winches, capstans or windlasses and one being hand held. All lines shall be led through closed chocks or fairleads acceptable to the Manager and the Corporation, of which three mooring lines:
(i) One shall lead forward and one shall lead astern from the break of the bow and one lead astern from the quarter and all three lines shall be independently power operated; and
(ii) One shall lead forward from the quarter and be hand held;
(3) Vessels of more than 100 m but not more than 120 m in overall length shall have four mooring lines or synthetic hawsers independently power operated by winches, capstan or windlasses as follows:
(i) One mooring line shall lead forward and one mooring line shall lead astern from the break of the bow and shall be independently power operated by the main drums of adequate power operated winches, and
(ii) One synthetic hawser shall lead forward and one synthetic hawser shall lead astern from the quarter and shall be independently power operated by either winches, capstan or windlasses;
(4) Vessels of more than 120 m in overall length shall have four mooring lines, two of which shall lead from the break of the bow and two of which shall lead from the quarter, and
(i) All shall be independently power operated by the main drums of adequate power operated winches and not by capstans or windlasses; and
(b) The following table sets out the requirements for the location of fairleads for ships of 80 m or more in overall length:
11. Section 401.13 would be revised to read as follows:
Hand lines shall:
(a) Be made of material acceptable to the Manager and the Corporation;
(b) Be of uniform thickness and have a diameter of not less than 15 mm and not more than 17 mm and a minimum length of 30m. The ends of the lines shall be back spliced or tapered; and
(c) Not be weighted or have knotted ends.
12. Section 401.14 would be revised to read as follows:
A highly visible anchor marking buoy of a type approved by the Manager and the Corporation, fitted with 22 m of suitable line, shall be secured directly to each anchor so that the buoy will mark the location of the anchor when the anchor is dropped.
13. In § 401.16, the introductory text would be revised to read as follows:
Every vessel of 1600 gross registered tons or integrated tug and barge or articulated tug and barge unit of combined 1600 gross registered tons or more shall be equipped with—
14. In § 401.17, the introductory text would be revised to read as follows:
Every vessel of 1600 gross registered tons or integrated tug and barge or articulated tug and barge unit of
15. In § 401.19, paragraphs (a) and (b)(2) would be revised, and paragraph (d) would be added to read as follows:
(a) Every vessel not equipped with containers for ordure shall be equipped with a sewage disposal system enabling compliance with the Canadian Garbage Pollution Prevention Regulations, the Canadian Great Lakes Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations, the U.S. Clean Water Act, and the U.S. River and Harbor Act, and amendments thereto.
(b) * * *
(2) Retained on board in covered, leak-proof containers, until such time as it can be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Canadian Garbage Pollution Prevention Regulations, the Canadian Great Lakes Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations, the U.S. Clean Water Act, and the U.S. River and Harbor Act, and amendments thereto.
(d) Burning of shipboard garbage is prohibited between CIP 2 & Cardinal and between CIP 15 and CIP 16.
16. In § 401.20, paragraphs (b)(5) through (b)(7) would be redesignated as paragraphs (b)(6) through (b)(8), and a new paragraph (b)(5) would be added to read as follows:
(5) The Minimum Keyboard Display (MKD) shall be located as close as possible to the primary conning position and be visible;
17. In § 401.22, paragraphs (a) and (c) would be revised to read as follows:
(a) No vessel, other than a pleasure craft 300 gross registered tonnage or less, shall transit until an application for preclearance has been made, pursuant to § 401.24 of this part, to the Manager by the vessel's representative and the application has been approved by the Corporation or the Manager pursuant to § 401.25 of this part.
(c) A non-commercial vessel of 300 gross registered tonnage or less cannot apply for preclearance status and must transit as a pleasure craft.
18. Section 401.24 would be revised to read as follows:
The representative of a vessel may, on a preclearance form (3 copies) obtained from the Manager, Cornwall, Ontario, or downloaded from the St. Lawrence Seaway Web site (
19. In § 401.30, paragraphs (c) and (d) would be redesignated as paragraphs (d) and (e), newly designated paragraphs (e) introductory text and (e)(2) would be revised, and a new paragraph (c) would be added to read as follows:
(c) No vessel, other than under exceptional circumstances and with special permission, shall be accepted for transit whose trim by the stern exceeds 45.7 dm.
(e) To obtain clearance to transit the Seaway:
(2) Every other vessel entering the Seaway that operates within the Great Lakes and the Seaway must agree to comply with the “Voluntary Management Practices to Reduce the Transfer of Aquatic Nuisance Species Within the Great Lakes by U.S. and Canadian Domestic Shipping” of the Lake Carriers Association and Canadian Shipowners Association dated January 26, 2001, while operating anywhere within the Great Lakes and the Seaway. A copy of the “Code of the Best Practices for Ballast Water Management” and of the “Voluntary Management Practices to Reduce the Transfer of Aquatic Nuisance Species Within the Great Lakes by U.S. and Canadian Domestic Shipping” can be found under “Navigation”, Notice #6, 2002, on www.greatlakes-seaway.com.
20. Section 401.34 would be revised to read as follows:
No vessel that is not self-propelled (including but not limited to tug/tows and/or deadship/tows) shall be underway in any Seaway waters unless it is securely tied to an adequate tug or tugs, in accordance with special instructions given by the Manager or the Corporation pursuant to § 401.33.
21. In § 401.35, paragraph (c) would be revised to read as follows:
(c) Man the wheelhouse of the vessel at all times by either the master or certified deck officer, and a helmsman, and;
22. In § 401.37, paragraph (b) would be revised to read as follows:
(b) Crew members being put ashore on landing booms and handling mooring lines on tie-up walls shall wear approved life jackets.
23. In § 401.39, the introductory text and paragraph (a) would be revised to read as follows:
Before a vessel enters a lock:
(a) Winches shall be capable of paying out at a minimum speed of 46 m per minute; and
24. In § 401.42, paragraph (a)(4) would be revised, paragraph (b) would be removed, and paragraph (c) would be redesignated as paragraph (b) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) Upbound vessels of overall length in excess of 218 m in Locks 4 and 5, Welland Canal, shall secure the hand lien to the eye of the No. 1 mooring wire by means of a bowline.
25. Section 401.57 would be amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
(c) Persons disembarking or boarding shall be assisted by a member of the vessel's crew.
26. Section 401.58 would be revised to read as follows:
(a) The transit of pleasure craft shall be scheduled by the vessel traffic controller or the officer in charge of a lock and may be delayed so as to avoid interference with other vessels; and
(b) Every pleasure craft seeking to transit shall stop at a pleasure craft dock and arrange for transit by contacting the lock personnel using the direct-line phone and make the lockage fee payment by purchasing a ticket using the automated ticket dispensers.
27. In § 401.68, paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(4) would be revised to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) For all vessels carrying any quantity of explosives with a mass explosive risk, up to a maximum of 2 tonnes (IMO Class 1, Division 1.1 and 1.5);
(4) For all vessels carrying more than 100 tonnes and up to a maximum of 500 tonnes of safety explosives and shop goods (IMO Class 1, Divisions 1.4).
28. In § 401.72, paragraphs (a), (e) introductory text, (e)(2), (f), and (h) would be revised, and paragraphs (e)(6) and (i) would be added to read as follows:
(a) Every explosive vessel or hazardous cargo vessel shall, when reporting information related to cargo as required by § 401.64(a), report the nature and tonnage of its explosive or hazardous cargo where applicable. Every vessel carrying grain which is under fumigation shall declare to the nearest traffic control center the nature of the fumigant, its properties and cargo holds affected.
(e) Every vessel carrying dangerous cargo, as defined in § 401.66, and all tankers carrying liquid cargo in bulk, and all vessels carrying grain under fumigation shall, prior to transiting any part of the Seaway, file with the Manager a copy of the current load plan that includes the following information:
(2) The approximate total weight in metric tonnes or total volume in cubic meters and the stowage location of each commodity;
(6) Tankers in ballast shall report the previous cargo of each cargo hold on a plan as described in this paragraph (e).
(f) For tankers, the information required under this section shall be detailed on a plan showing the general layout of the tanks, and a midships cross-section showing the double bottom tanks and ballast side tanks.
(h) Every vessel shall submit its load plan to the nearest Seaway Traffic Control Center from which it will be distributed to all other Seaway Traffic Control Centers. Any changes in stowage, including loading and discharging during a transit, the ship shall submit an updated plan before departing from any port between St. Lambert and Long Point.
(i) Failure to comply with the requirements in this section may result in unnecessary delays or transit refusal.
29. In § 401.74, paragraph (a) would be revised to read as follows:
(a) A Seaway Transit Declaration Form (Cargo and Passenger) shall be forwarded to the Manager by the representative of a ship, for each ship that has an approved preclearance except non-cargo ships, within fourteen days after the vessel enters the Seaway on any upbound or downbound transit. The form may be obtained from The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, 202 Pitt Street, Cornwall, Ontario, K6J 3P7.
30. In § 401.75, paragraph (b) would be revised to read as follows:
(b) Tolls, established by agreement between Canada and the United States, and known as the St. Lawrence Seaway Schedule of Tolls, shall be paid by pleasure crafts with prepaid tickets purchased in Canadian funds using credit card ticket dispensers located at pleasure craft docks. At U.S. locks, the fee is paid in U.S. funds or the pre-established equivalent in Canadian funds.
31. Section 401.79 would be revised to read as follows:
Every vessel shall provide at least 96 hours notice of arrival to the nearest Seaway station prior to all transits or in case reinspection of the ship is required.
32. In § 401.81, paragraph (a) would be revised to read as follows:
(a) Where a vessel on the Seaway is involved in an accident or a dangerous occurrence, the master of the vessel shall report the accident or occurrence, pursuant to the requirements of the Transportation Safety Board Regulations, to the nearest Seaway or Canadian or U.S. Coast Guard radio or traffic stations, as soon as possible and prior to departing the Seaway system.
33. In § 401.93, paragraph (b) would be revised to read as follows:
(b) Except as authorized by an officer or by the
34. Section 401.94 would be revised to read as follows:
(a) A copy of these Regulations (subpart A of Part 401), a copy the vessel's latest Ship Inspection Report, and Seaway Notices for the current navigation year shall be kept on board every vessel in transit.
(b) Onboard every vessel transiting the Seaway a duplicated set of the Ship's Fire Control Plans shall be permanently stored in a prominently marked weather-tight enclosure outside the deckhouse for the assistance of shore-side fire-fighting personnel.
35. Section 401.95 would be revised to read as follows:
The master or owner of a vessel shall ensure that all requirements of these Regulations and Seaway Notices applicable to that vessel are complied with.
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; change of expiration date.
EPA proposes to extend the Project XL Final Rule for New York State Public Utilities; Hazardous Waste Management Systems (XL Rule). The XL Rule was published as a final rule in the
Comments on the proposed extension of the XL Rule must be received on or before February 24, 2005.
Comments can be submitted electronically through the EPA's EDOCKET Web site (
Written comments should be mailed to the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), RCRA Docket (5305T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please send an original and two copies of all comments, and refer to Docket Number RCRA-2004-0021. A copy should also be sent to Mr. Philip Flax at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866.
A docket containing public comments and supporting materials from the original final rulemaking is available for public inspection and copying at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), located at EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Room B102, Washington, DC. The EPA/DC is open from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays (All materials from this docket are available 24 hours a day online through the EDOCKET system with the new rulemaking's Docket ID of RCRA-2004-0021). The public is encouraged to phone in advance to review docket materials at the EPA/DC. Appointments can be scheduled by phoning the Docket Office at (202) 566-2270. Refer to RCRA docket number F-98-NYSP-FFFFFF. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost 15 cents per page.
A duplicate copy of the docket is available for inspection and copying at U.S. EPA, Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866 during normal business hours. Persons wishing to view the duplicate docket at the New York location are encouraged to contact Mr. Philip Flax in advance, by telephoning (212) 637-4143. Information is also available on the world wide web at
Mr. Philip Flax, U.S. EPA, Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-4143.
On July 12, 1999, EPA promulgated subpart I of 40 CFR part 262 (XL Rule) which sets forth the requirements for Project XL for public utilities in New York State. The XL Rule was published as a final rule at 64 FR 37624 (July 12, 1999). The XL Rule expires on January 10, 2005. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to amend the expiration date of the XL Rule in 40 CFR 262.90(j). EPA is not proposing to modify any other provisions of the XL Rule.
EPA proposes to amend the expiration date of the XL Rule and provide an additional 72 months from the effective date of the rule resulting from today's proposal. An extension of the expiration date for the XL Rule will enable the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) to implement portions of the project requiring regulatory changes. New York State has received authority to administer hazardous waste standards for generators that are equivalent to, or more stringent than, the federal program. Therefore, the requirements outlined in the XL Rule will not take effect in New York State until the State adopts equivalent requirements through a State rulemaking and receives EPA authorization for these equivalent State requirements. EPA will not be the primary regulatory agency responsible for implementing the requirements of the XL Rule. EPA expects this XL Project to result in superior environmental performance in New York State, while providing cost savings to participating Utilities.
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified States to administer the RCRA hazardous waste program within the State. Following authorization, the State requirements authorized by EPA apply in lieu of equivalent Federal requirements and become federally enforceable as requirements of RCRA. EPA maintains independent authority to bring enforcement actions under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003. Authorized States also have independent authority to bring enforcement actions under State law. A State may receive authorization by following the approval process described in 40 CFR part 271. 40 CFR part 271 also describes the overall standards and requirements for authorization.
After a State receives initial authorization, new Federal regulatory requirements promulgated under the authority in the RCRA statute which existed prior to the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) do not apply in that state until the state adopts and receives authorization for equivalent state requirements. The state must adopt such requirements to maintain authorization.
In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) (
Today's proposed rule is promulgated pursuant to RCRA provisions that predate HSWA. New York State has received authority to administer most of the RCRA program; thus, authorized provisions of the State's hazardous waste program are administered in lieu of the federal program. New York State has received authority to administer hazardous waste standards for generators. As a result, today's rule will not be effective in New York State until the State adopts equivalent requirements as State law and receives EPA authorization for those equivalent State requirements. EPA may not enforce these requirements until it approves the State requirements as a revision to the authorized State program.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (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
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs of 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.
Because the annualized cost of this rule will be significantly less than $100 million and will not meet any of the other criteria specified in the Executive Order, it has been determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866, and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an Agency to conduct a Regulatory Flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (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. This proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. EPA proposes to extend the Project XL Final Rule for New York State Public Utilities; Hazardous Waste Management Systems (XL Rule) that was published on July 12, 1999, which will expire January 10, 2005. No other changes are being made to the XL Rule other than to change the expiration date by providing an additional 72 months from the effective date of the rule resulting from today's proposal. 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.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements contained in this rule under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
EPA is collecting information regarding the locations and amount of waste involved as well as the money saved and what the savings was invested in. EPA plans to use this information to determine whether the XL project is successful. The success of the project will help determine whether it should be extended to other areas of the country. Participation in the project is voluntary; however, if a Utility decides to participate, EPA requires the filing of a report containing pertinent information. These reports will be publicly available. The estimated cost burden of filing the annual report is $10,000 and the estimated length of time to prepare the report is 40 hours. The estimated number of respondents is 15. 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 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. EPA amended the 40 CFR part 9 table of currently approved ICR control numbers issued by OMB for various regulations to list the information requirements contained in the XL Rule. The table lists the CFR citations for EPA's reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and the current OMB control numbers. This listing of OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfy the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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 or 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 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.
As noted above, this rule is applicable only to New York State Utilities. The EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA has also determined that this rule does 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
The Executive Order, “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 Executive Order 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 rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because it does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children.
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. 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 proposed rule does not create a mandate on State, local, or tribal governments and does not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 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 to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
Environmental protection, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 262 of title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 262 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6906, 9612, 6922-6925, 6937, and 6938.
2. Section 262.90 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as follows:
(j) This section will expire on __ [72 months from effective date].
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of 90-day petition finding.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day petition finding for petitions to list
The finding announced in this document was made January 7, 2005.
Data, information, written comments and materials, or questions concerning these petitions and findings should be submitted to the Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA
Constance Rutherford, botanist, at the above address (telephone 805/644-1766).
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
On June 20, 2002, we received two separate petitions, both dated June 18, 2002, to list
This taxon was first described by Cornelius Lott Shear in 1900 as
The petition to list
The petitioner estimates that
The information available to us for the species in California states that the species is: “Occasional in coastal sage scrub and weedy ground; coast west of Point Dume, Sepulveda Canyon, west Los Angeles” (Raven
This taxon was first described as
The petition to list
The petitioner estimates that
The information in our files indicates that in California, the species is scattered in coastal sage scrub and chaparral in the western half of the Santa Monica Mountains below 2000 ft. (Raven
NatureServe (2000; 2003) indicates that the global heritage status rank for both
Although the petitioner mentioned a number of threats to both
We have reviewed the petitions, literature cited in the petitions, other pertinent literature, and information available in our files. The available information we were able to access concerning these species indicates that they are widespread. Without additional information on the life history, range, or population size of
After reviewing the best scientific and commercial information available, and because of the lack of adequate data indicating a biological vulnerability and presence of threats to these species, we find the petitions do not present substantial information that listing
A complete list of all references cited herein is available, upon request, from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (
The primary author of this document is Constance Rutherford, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of public meeting.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's Animal Care program will host a meeting to present current information on the enforcement of the Horse Protection Act and provide a forum for listening to concerns from horse industry members and other interested persons about the Horse Protection Program. This notice provides the meeting's agenda, location, and date.
The meeting will be held from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. on March 7, 2005. Registration information is provided in the
The meeting will be held at the USDA Center at Riverside, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD.
Mr. Mike Tuck, Management Analyst, PPD, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 734-5819.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Animal Care, is announcing a meeting to discuss the enforcement of the Horse Protection Act. This meeting is designed to provide a forum for discussion on current initiatives by Animal Care. During the meeting, industry members and other interested parties will be given the opportunity to provide information and comments to Animal Care about the Horse Protection Program. At the time of registration, participants may sign up to speak and will be allotted a set amount of time.
The meeting will, with possible minor modifications, follow the agenda below:
Please note that this meeting is being held to provide for the exchange of information on the enforcement of the Horse Protection Act and is not an opportunity to submit formal comments on proposed rules or other regulatory initiatives. Written comments will be accepted and should be mailed to: USDA, APHIS, Animal Care, 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737.
We request that you preregister for the meeting by calling (301) 734-7833 or e-mailing Animal Care at
Please note that a fee of $2.25 is required to enter the parking lot at the USDA Center at Riverside. The machine accepts $1 bills or quarters. Picture identification is required to be admitted to the building. Upon entering the building, visitors should inform security personnel that they are attending the Horse Protection meeting.
Forest Service, USDA.
Revised notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The USDA Forest Service published a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Commercial Pack Stock Use Authorizations for the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses Project in the
In addition, the decision to be made reflects a change that this proposal will only amend the Ansel Adams and John Muir portions of the 2001 Wilderness Management Plan. No commercial pack stock use will be authorized under this proposal. Finally, the name of the project has been changed to better describe the proposed action and is now “Trail and Commercial Pack Stock Management in the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses.”
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis and revised notice of intent should be received within 30 days following the publication of this notice in
A draft environmental impact statement is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in April 2005. At that time the EPA will publish a Notice of Availability in the
Send written comments to Forest Supervisor, Attention: Wilderness Planning, Inyo National Forest, 351 Pacu Lane, Suite 200, Bishop, CA 93514. Comments may be sent electronically to
Mary Beth Hennessy, Wilderness Specialist, Inyo National Forest, 351 Pacu Lane, Suite 200, Bishop, CA 93514, (760) 873-2448.
To better reflect the purpose and need for the project, the name of the project has been changed to “Trail and Commercial Pack Stock Management in the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses.” Publication of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements will be under this name.
Comments previously submitted for the scoping of the proposed action for this project as described in the June 15, 2004,
This proposal responds in part to the Court Order of November 1, 2001, (and modified January 10, 2002) which requires that the Forest Service complete a cumulative impacts analysis within the NEPA process, and that it consider limits on numbers of stock animals used in conjunction with commercial operators, limits on the group size (both people and number of stock both on and off trail), trail suitability for various use types, and designation of campsites for use by commercial pack stations.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Olympic Province Advisory Committee (OPAC) will meet on Friday, February 18, 2005. The meeting will be held at the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal Conference Center, Highway 101, Blyn, Washington. The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. and end at approximately 3:30 p.m. Agenda topics are: Current status of key Forest issues; 2004 Planning Rule update; NW Forest Plan Land Use Designations and appropriate management activities; Hood Canal District 2005 Program of Work; Forest Law Enforcement Issues; Open forum; and Public comments.
All Olympic Province Advisory Committee Meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend.
Direct questions regarding this meeting to Ken Eldredge, Province Liaison, USDA, Olympic National Forest Headquarters, 1835 Black Lake Blvd., Olympia, WA 98512-5623, (360) 956-2323 or Dale Hom, Forest Supervisor, at (360) 956-2301.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
January 25, 2005.
Alex Villanueva at (202) 482-3208 or Hallie Noel Zink at (202) 482-6907; AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
For purposes of this order, the term “certain crepe paper” includes crepe paper products that have a basis weight not exceeding 29 grams per square meter prior to being creped and, if appropriate, flame-proofed. Crepe paper has a finely wrinkled surface texture and typically but not exclusively is treated to be flame-retardant. Crepe paper is typically but not exclusively produced as streamers in roll form and
The merchandise subject to this order does not have specific classification numbers assigned to them under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) . Subject merchandise may be under one or more of several different HTSUS subheadings, including: 4802.30; 4802.54; 4802.61; 4802.62; 4802.69; 4804.39; 4806.40; 4808.30; 4808.90; 4811.90; 4818.90; 4823.90; 9505.90.40. The tariff classifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
On January 18, 2005, the International Trade Commission (the ITC) notified the Department of Commerce (the Department) of its final determination pursuant to section 735(b)(1)(A)(I) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), that the industry in the United States producing crepe paper is materially injured by reason of less-than-fair-value imports of subject merchandise from the People's Republic of China (PRC). In addition, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise from the PRC that are subject to the Department's affirmative critical circumstances finding. Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further advice by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price of the merchandise for all relevant entries of crepe paper from the PRC. These antidumping duties will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of crepe paper from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from the warehouse, for consumption on or after September 21, 2004, the date on which the Department published its
With regard to the ITC negative critical circumstances determination, we will instruct Customs to lift suspension and to release any bond or other security, and refund any cash deposit made, to secure the payment of antidumping duties with respect to entries of the merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 23, 2004, but before September 21, 2004. June 23, 2004, is 90 days prior to September 21, 2004, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the
CBP must require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average antidumping duty margins noted below. The “PRC-Wide” rates apply to all exporters of subject merchandise not specifically listed.
This notice
This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
January 25, 2005.
Elizabeth Eastwood or Jill Pollack, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-3874 or (202) 482-4593.
On December 27, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received an antidumping duty petition (petition) filed by Florida Citrus Mutual, A. Duda & Sons, Inc. (doing business as Citrus Belle), Citrus World, Inc., Peace River Citrus Products, Inc., and Southern Garden Citrus Processing Corporation (doing business as Southern Gardens) (collectively “the petitioners”).
The following language describes the imported merchandise from Brazil that the petitioners intend to be included in the scope of the investigation.
The product under investigation is certain orange juice for transport and/or further manufacturing, produced in two different forms: (1) Frozen orange juice in a highly concentrated form, sometimes referred to as frozen concentrated orange juice for further manufacturing (FCOJM); and (2) pasteurized single-strength orange juice which has not been concentrated, referred to as Not-From-Concentrate (NFC).
There is an existing antidumping duty order on frozen concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) from Brazil.
The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under item 2009.11.00, 2009.12.25 and 2009.12.45, and 2009.19.00 of the
Section 771(10) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with the article subject to investigation.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to investigation,”
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that the Department's industry support determination be based on whether a minimum percentage of the relevant industry supports the petition. A petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (1) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (1) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (2) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the industry.
In the instant case, we have received challenges to industry support from U.S. producers and need to determine the production quantities and levels of imports of U.S. producers, as well as the relationships between U.S. and foreign producers, in order to evaluate the calculation of industry support in the petition. Because the petition has not established that domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product support the petition, we must “poll or otherwise determine industry support for the petition by the industry.”
In accordance with section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act and in order to determine whether the petition establishes support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, we are hereby requesting that all domestic producer/manufacturers of certain orange juice submit to the Department a response to the questions posted on Import Administration's Web site:
Given the very short period in which we must determine industry support, the number of potential responses, and the fact that industry support may not be re-examined after initiation, we are waiving the filing requirements set forth in 19 C.F.R § 351.303 for certain parties submitting information on industry support. This waiver of the filing requirements will not apply to: 1) the submission of documents that are not in response to the information requested in this notice; or 2) parties that are familiar with the conduct of antidumping and countervailing proceedings through prior involvement in such proceedings (
This limited waiver is applicable only until January 26, 2005, the deadline for submitting the information requested in this notice. This waiver is intended to expedite the receipt of information that is essential to our analysis of industry support by providing information on the production of the domestic like product by petitioning and non-petitioning companies. By avoiding delays in the receipt of such information, we will have more time to analyze whether the statutory requirements concerning industry support for the above-referenced petitions have been met.
All parties submitting any information must include the following statement in their response: “I, (name and title), currently employed by (person), certify that (1) I have read the attached submission, and (2) based on the information made available to me by (person), I have no reason to believe that this submission contains any material misrepresentation or omission of fact.” All information received by the Department will be treated as business proprietary information as outlined in our regulations (19 CFR 351.304-306), unless otherwise noted. Please note that all company names will be treated as public information. In addition, note that all business proprietary documents received by the Department in response to this notice will be served to those individuals with access to business proprietary information under the Administrative Protective Order (APO). All public documents may be made available to those parties on the public service list. The APO service lists and the public service lists are available on Import Administration's Web site:
Information submitted to the Department in response to this notice should be faxed to the following number: 202-482-4776. Furthermore, all such information will be placed on the official record of the proceeding. Responses to this notice are due no later than January 26, 2005. Responses after this date may not be reviewed by the Department and therefore, not included in the analysis.
Section 732(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that within 20 days of the filing of an antidumping duty petition, the Department will determine,
We will require additional information from the petitioners and the domestic producers of certain orange juice in order to make our determination regarding industry support and/or time to analyze the petitioners' responses to our requests for information.
Because the Department has extended the deadline of the initiation determination, the Department will contact the ITC and will make this extension notice available to the ITC.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of final criteria and data fields for building an Inventory of Marine Managed Areas and response to comments on draft criteria.
NOAA and the Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior (DOI), on July 23, 2003, jointly proposed criteria, definitions, and data fields that will be used in development of an Inventory of U.S. Marine Managed Areas (MMAs). The MMA Inventory will provide information that will lead to the fulfillment of requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13158 on Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). This action provides the final criteria and data fields that will be used to develop and complete the MMA Inventory and summarizes and responds to comments received on the notice of July 23rd. This will allow the completion of Phase I, development of the MMA Inventory, to be followed by the development of criteria for and the List of MPAs (Phase II) called for in E.O. 13158.
Effective on January 25, 2005.
Joseph A. Uravitch, Director, National Marine Protected Areas Center, NOAA, (301) 713-3100, x195.
Electronic Access: This Federal Register document also is accessible via the internet at the Office of the Federal Register's Web site at
E.O. 13158 directs DOC and DOI, in consultation with the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the United States Agency for International Development, the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and other pertinent federal agencies, to work with non-federal partners to protect significant natural and cultural resources within the marine environment of the United States, including the Great Lakes, by strengthening and expanding a scientifically-based comprehensive National System of MPAs. A key purpose of E.O. 13158 is to “enhance the conservation of our Nation's natural and cultural marine heritage and the ecologically and economically sustainable use of the marine environment for future generations.” A first step in developing this scientifically-based National System of MPAs is the development of an inventory of MMAs. This inventory will become the initial pool of sites from which the List of MPAs called for in section 4(d) of the E.O. 13158 will be developed.
DOC and DOI were given specific roles by E.O. 13158. DOC has delegated lead responsibility to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. DOI has delegated its lead to the Assistant Secretary, Lands and Minerals Management. NOAA and DOI have stewardship responsibilities for marine resources under various federal laws, including the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Antiquities Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and the National Park Service Organic Act. These and other authorities direct DOC and DOI agencies to manage marine areas for a wide variety of objectives. Area-based management has been used for years to protect marine habitat and submerged cultural resources, rebuild and sustain fisheries, provide recreational opportunities, promote marine research, recover endangered species, and support local economies that depend on ocean resources. These areas have been managed in different ways ranging from restricting specific activities and allowing sustainable use of natural resources within an area, to the establishment of marine reserves that limit access and close the site to all uses except research.
The MMA Inventory will be used in Phase I to inform federal, state, commonwealth, territorial, local, and tribal agencies of the locations and characteristics of existing MMAs and to form a pool from which sites may later be considered for placement on the List of MPAs (Phase II). Resource managers and others can use this information to better manage these areas and determine the effectiveness of individual sites, as well as regional and national assemblages. The core purposes of the MMA Inventory are:
• Providing centralized, easily accessed information on and maps of existing federal, State, commonwealth, territorial, local, and tribal MMAs in the United States;
• Providing information and tools for environmental assessments and effectiveness monitoring (supporting independent analyses and studies of a wide variety of marine issues by governmental and non-governmental users);
• Providing important site-specific information for developing and maintaining the official nationwide List of MPAs required by section 4(d) of E.O. 13158; and
• Providing information to fulfill other requirements of E.O. 13158.
NOAA and DOI have placed a variety of protective or restrictive measures on different marine areas to achieve different management purposes. The definitions and working criteria in this notice are being used to build the MMA Inventory and may, at some future date, be used in determining which sites should be placed on the List of MPAs (Phase II). These definitions and criteria are final and incorporate public comment, as appropriate, but may be changed at some future date if required by experience gained by using the MMA Inventory and implementing E.O. 13158. The public will be informed of such changes to the criteria through the
It is important to distinguish between the MMA Inventory and the List of MPAs. The MMA Inventory is not designed to fulfill the requirement of E.O. 13158 for a List of MPAs but is the first step toward development of that List. The List is to be established at some future date after an administrative process for listing has been established.
As a result of public comment, NOAA and DOI have decided to broaden some aspects of the inventory criteria for building the MMA Inventory.
The federal, state, or tribal authorities that established these areas are responsible for determining whether they meet their statutory criteria, including scientific review. NOAA and DOI are authorized to review the programs and their sites to determine their applicability in supporting the goals of the national system of MPAs. NOAA and DOI intend to conduct periodic reviews of the sites on the List of MPAs. If the sites no longer meet the goals of the National System of MPAs, they will be removed from the List.
NOAA and DOI intend to use the following definition for the term “estuary”: “Part of a river or stream or other body of water having unimpaired connection with the open sea, where the sea water is measurably diluted with fresh water derived from land drainage, and extending upstream to where ocean-derived salts measure less than 0.5 parts per thousand during the period of average annual low flow.” Application of this criterion would exclude, for example, strictly freshwater sites outside the Great Lakes region that contain marine species at certain seasons or life history stages unless that site is a component of a larger, multi-unit MMA. However, upon request the agencies will work with individual states, commonwealths and territories to examine unique conditions which may affect applicability of the term “estuary”. Estuarine-like sites on tributaries of the Great Lakes will be considered for inclusion if they are located within the eight-digit U.S. Geological Survey cataloging unit adjacent to a Great Lake or its connecting waters.
Must be established with an expectation of, history of, or at least the potential for permanence.
Application of this criterion would exclude, for example: Areas subject only to temporary protections, such as areas protected only by emergency fishery regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which expire after 180 days.
Must have existing laws or regulations that are designed and applied to afford the site with increased protection for part or all of the natural and submerged cultural resources therein for the purpose of maintaining or enhancing the long-term conservation of these resources, beyond any general protections that apply outside the site.
Application of this criterion would exclude restricted areas that are established for purposes other than conservation. For example, the term would not include areas closed for navigational safety, areas closed to safeguard modern man-made structures (
Taken together, these six definitions and criteria provide the basis for selecting sites to be included in the MMA Inventory.
The MMA Inventory database consists of 35 main fields divided into 5 main topic sections. These inventory fields are used to gather site-specific information including (but not limited to) site description, legal authorities, management tools, habitat information, species information, location, and size. Please refer to MPA.gov “inventory database description” web page at
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA)
Request for public comments concerning a request for a determination that certain yarns, for use in chief-weight cotton sweaters, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the CBTPA
On January 14, 2005 the Chairman of CITA received a petition from Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., on behalf of Outlast Technology, Inc. of Boulder, CO and Bernette Textile Co, LLC of New York, NY, alleging that certain colored open end spun yarns ranging in size from 6/1 to 18/1 English count (10.16/1 to 30.47/1 metric) of a blend of reclaimed and reprocessed cotton and not less than 35 percent nor more than 49 percent by weight of Outlast licensed phase change acrylic staple fibers produced under license from Outlast, for use in chief weight cotton sweaters, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. It requests that such apparel made from such yarn be eligible for preferential treatment under the CBTPA. This is a refiling of a previous petition regarding the subject yarn. CITA hereby solicits
Shikha Bhatnagar, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-3821.
Section 213(b)(2)(A)(v)(II) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, as added by Section 211(a) of the CBTPA; Section 6 of Executive Order No. 13191 of January 17, 2001.
The CBTPA provides for quota- and duty-free treatment for qualifying textile and apparel products. Such treatment is generally limited to products manufactured from yarns and fabrics formed in the United States or a beneficiary country. The CBTPA also provides for quota- and duty-free treatment for apparel articles that are both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more CBTPA beneficiary countries from fabric or yarn that is not formed in the United States or a beneficiary country, if it has been determined that such fabric or yarn cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. In Executive Order No. 13191, the President delegated to CITA the authority to determine whether yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the CBTPA and directed CITA to establish procedures to ensure appropriate public participation in any such determination. On March 6, 2001, CITA published procedures that it will follow in considering requests. (66 FR 13502).
On January 14, 2004, the Chairman of CITA received a petition from Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., on behalf of Outlast Technology, Inc. of Boulder, CO and Bernette Textile Co, LLC of New York, NY, alleging that certain colored open end spun yarns ranging in size from 6/1 to 18/1 English count (10.16/1 to 30.47/1 metric) of a blend of reclaimed and reprocessed cotton and not less than 35 percent nor more than 49 percent by weight of Outlast licensed phase change acrylic staple fiber produced under license from Outlast, for use in chief weight cotton sweaters, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner requesting quota- and duty-free treatment under the CBTPA for apparel articles that are cut and sewn in one or more CBTPA beneficiary countries from such yarns. The petition contained the following yarn specifications.
CITA is soliciting public comments regarding this request, particularly with respect to whether this yarn can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Also relevant is whether other yarns that are supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner are substitutable for these yarns for purposes of the intended use. Comments must be received no later than February 9, 2005. Interested persons are invited to submit six copies of such comments or information to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, room 3100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.
If a comment alleges that this yarn can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner, CITA will closely review any supporting documentation, such as a signed statement by a manufacturer of the yarns stating that it produces the yarns that are the subject of the request, including the quantities that can be supplied and the time necessary to fill an order, as well as any relevant information regarding past production.
CITA will protect any business confidential information that is marked business confidential from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law. CITA will make available to the public non-confidential versions of the request and non-confidential versions of any public comments received with respect to a request in room 3100 in the Herbert Hoover Building, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Persons submitting comments on a request are encouraged to include a non-confidential version and a non-confidential summary.
Department of the Navy, DOD.
Notice.
The Ocean Research Advisory Panel (ORAP) is soliciting nominations for new members.
Nominations should be submitted no later than Friday, February 25, 2005.
Nominations should be submitted via e-mail to LT Cory Huyssoon, U.S. Navy, at
Dr. Melbourne G. Briscoe, Office of Naval Research, 800 North Quincy Street, Arlington, VA 22217-5660, telephone 703-696-4120.
ORAP is a statutorily mandated federal advisory committee that provides senior scientific advice to the National Oceanographic Research Leadership Council (NORLC), the governing body of the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP). ORAP advises the NORLC on policies, procedures, selection of projects and the allocation of funds, as well as other responsibilities that NORLC considers appropriate.
Panel Member Duties and Responsibilities: Members of the panel represent the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, ocean industries, state governments, academia, and others including individuals who are eminent in the fields of marine science, marine policy, or related fields. Members are appointed for not more than four years, and are not normally compensated except for travel expenses and per diem while away from their homes in performance of services for the panel.
The panel meets for at least one two-day public meeting per year, but possibly meets three times per year, on dates agreeable by the panel members;
In accordance with section 7903 of title 10, United States Code, the short-list of candidates will then be submitted for approval by the Secretary of the Navy with concurrence by the Secretary of Defense. In order to have the collective breadth of experience in the panel and maintain full panel membership, six new candidates are expected to be selected with terms to begin in July 2005.
The selection of new panel members will be based on the nominee's qualifications to provide senior scientific advice to the NORLC; the availability of the potential panel member to fully participate in the panel meetings; absence of any conflict of interest or appearance of lack of impartiality, and lack of bias; the candidates' areas of expertise and professional qualifications; and achieving an overall balance of different scientific perspectives and expertise on the panel.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice of open meeting.
The BOA to the President, U.S. NWC, will meet to discuss educational, doctrinal, and research policies and programs at the NWC. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on Friday, March 18, 2005, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The meeting will be held in Conolly Hall, U.S. NWC, 686 Cushing Road, Newport, RI.
Mr. Richard R. Menard, Office of the Provost, U.S. NWC, 686 Cushing Road, Newport, RI 02841-1207, telephone number (401) 841-3589.
This notice of meeting is provided per the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The purpose of the Board of Advisors meeting is to elicit advice on educational, doctrinal, and research policies and programs. The agenda will consist of presentations and discussions on the curriculum, programs and plans of the College since the last meeting of the BOA in March 2004.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to SWORD Diagnostics, a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license, to practice in the fields of rapid detection of pathogens for food safety; drinking water and process water; and human and veterinary diagnostic markets in the United States and certain foreign countries, the Government-Owned inventions described in U.S. Patent Application No. 10/113,643 entitled “Efficient Near-Neighbor Search (ENN-SEARCH) Method for High Dimensional Data Sets with Noise”, Navy Case No. 82,296.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than February 9, 2005.
Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Research Laboratory, Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320.
Ms. Jane Kuhl, Head, Technology Transfer Office, NRL Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320, telephone (202) 767-3083. Due to U.S. Postal delays, please fax (202) 404-7920, e-mail:
Notice of public meeting to seek comments and suggestions on regulatory issues under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as
The Secretary announces plans to hold the forth 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.
Friday, February 11, 2005 from 1 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
San Diego City Public Schools, Lindbergh Schweitzer Elementary School, Schweitzer Campus, 6991 Balboa Avenue, San Diego, CA 92111.
Troy R. Justesen. Telephone: (202) 245-7468.
On December 3, 2004, the President signed into law Pub L. 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 forth of these meetings, scheduled for San Diego, CA (see
Other informal meetings will be conducted in the following locations:
• Atlanta, GA;
• Laramie, WY; and
• Washington, DC.
In subsequent
Individuals who need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (
National Board for Education Sciences; Education.
Notice of Partially Closed Meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the National Board for Education Sciences. Notice of this meeting is required under Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This document is intended to notify the general public of their opportunity to attend the open portion of the meeting. Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (i.e., interpreting services, assistive listening devices, materials in alternative format) should notify Mary Grace Lucier at (202) 219-2253 by January 28. We will attempt to meet requests after this date, but cannot guarantee availability of the requested accommodation. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities.
February 8 and 9, 2005.
Mary Grace Lucier, Designated Federal Official, National Board for Education Sciences, Washington, DC 20208. Tel.: (202) 219-2353; fax: (202) 219-1466; e-mail:
The National Board for Education Sciences is authorized by Section 116 of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002. The Board advises the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) on the establishment of activities to be supported by the Institute, on the funding of applications for grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements for research after the completion of peer review, and reviews and evaluates the work of the Institute. After a swearing-in ceremony on February 8, the Board will introduce their members and hear briefings on government ethics issues, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the Board's legislative mandate. The meeting will close to the public from 3-4:30 p.m. under the authority of Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2) and under exemption (6) of Section 552b(c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409; 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)). There will be a discussion of the qualifications and fitness of candidates for the position of chairman and executive director, which discussion will touch upon matters that would disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if conducted in an open session. On February 9, the Board will review the agency budget, hear briefings on selected IES projects, and plan the schedule and agenda for future meetings. A final agenda will be available from Mary Grace Lucier on January 28.
A summary of the activities at the closed session and related matters which are informative to the public consistent with the policy of Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) will be available to the public within fourteen days of the meeting. Records will be kept of all Board proceedings and will be available for public inspection at the office of the National Board for Education Sciences, Suite 100, 80 F St. NW., Washington, DC 20208.
Election Assistance Commission.
Notice of public meeting for EAC Standards Board.
Wednesday, February 2, 2005, 2 p.m.-5:30 p.m. and Thursday, February 3, 2005, 8:30 a.m.-3 p.m.
Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill, 400 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20005—(Metro Stop: Union Station).
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Standards Board, as required by the Help America Vote Act of 2002, will meet to present its views on issues in the administration of federal elections, and formulate recommendations to the EAC.
Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (202) 566-3100.
Export-Import Bank of the U.S.
Notice and request for comments.
The Export-Import Bank, as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The form will be used by customers who originally applied for a multibuyer policy using EIB 92-50. Our customers will be able to submit this form on paper or electronically.
Written comments should be received on or before March 28, 2005.
Direct all comments and requests for additional information to Walter Kosciow, Export-Import Bank of the U.S., 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3649.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
12:00 p.m., Monday, January 31, 2005.
Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.
Closed.
1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees.
2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.
Michelle A. Smith, Director, Office of Board Members; 202-452-2955.
You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 21, 2005.
Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Health and Science, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is hereby giving notice that the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) will hold a meeting. This meeting is open to the public. A description of the Council's functions is included also with this notice.
February 7, 2005 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., and February 8, 2005, 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201. Conference Room 800.
Joseph Grogan, Esq., Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 736E, Washington, DC 20201; or visit the Council's Web site at
PACHA was established by Executive Order 12963, dated June 14, 1995, as amended by Executive Order 13009, dated June 14, 1996. PACHA was established to provide advice, information, and recommendations to the President regarding programs and policies intended to (a) Promote effective prevention of HIV disease, (b) advance research on HIV and AIDS, and (c) promote quality services to persons living with HIV disease and AIDS. PACHA was established to serve solely as an advisory body to the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. PACHA is composed of not more than 35 members. PACHA membership is determined by the Secretary from individuals who are considered authorities with particular expertise in, or knowledge of, matters concerning HIV/AIDS.
The agenda for this meeting includes the following topics: HIV/AIDS prevention, care and treatment, and global HIV/AIDS issues. Time will be allotted during the meeting for public comment.
Public attendance is limited to space available and pre-registration is required for both attendance and public comment. Any individual who wishes to attend and/or comment must call (202) 690-2470 to register. Individuals must provide a government issued photo ID for entry into the meeting. Individuals who need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the registrar.
Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments at the meeting. Public comment will be limited to three (3) minutes per speaker and to time available. Written testimony, not exceed five (5) pages, will be accepted by mail or facsimile at 202/358-2917. Written testimony will not be accepted after 5 p.m., Wednesday, February 2 , 2005.
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, HHS.
Announcement.
The Review of the Assumptions and Methods of the Medicare Trustees' Financial Projections, prepared by the 2004 Technical Review Panel on the Medicare Trustees Report, is now available online at:
The report focuses on review of the long-range growth assumptions for the Hospital Insurance (HI) and Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) trust funds, and the new Part D prescription drug benefit projections.
Questions regarding the report and requests for a limited number of printed copies may be directed to Andrew Cosgrove at (202) 205-8681 or
Administration on Aging, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the fourth Policy Committee meeting concerning planning for the 2005 White House Conference on Aging. The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should inform the
The meeting will be held Thursday, February 10, 2005, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, 2519 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Conference Room, Washington, DC 20008-1520.
Nora Andrews, (301) 443-2874, or e-mail at
Pursuant to the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-501, November 2000), the Policy Committee will meet to discuss subcommittee issues, conference technology, process under development for delegate selection, and the conference format and speakers.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's function; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
2.
3.
4.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS Web Site address at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection must be mailed within 30 days of this notice directly to the OMB desk officer: OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, Attention: Christopher Martin, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS' Web site address at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be mailed within 60 days of this notice directly to the CMS Paperwork Reduction Act Reports Clearance Officer designated at the address below: CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Melissa Musotto, Room C5-14-03, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.
• To study ERA's long-term impacts on employment, earnings, participation, educational attainment and income;
• To gather data on a wider range of outcome measures than is available through welfare or Unemployment Insurance records in order to understand how individuals were affected by ERA; participation in employment and education activities; educational attainment; employment history; marriage, household composition and child care; housing; household income; household food insecurity; health coverage and status; and child outcomes;
• To build upon data collected as part of the earlier 12-month survey wave;
• To conduct non-experimental analyses, in addition to experimental analyses, and provide a descriptive picture of the circumstances of low-wage workers; and
• To obtain participation information important to the evaluation's cost-benefits component.
In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. E-mail address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. E-mail address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, DHHS.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804; telephone: (301) 496-7057; fax: (301) 402-0220. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent applications.
Available for licensing, manufacturing and commercial development is a laparoscopic surgical device. This device is an obturator with a cylindrical shape (diameter about 11mm, length about 4.5 inches) with hollow inflow and outflow channels running through the obturator to allow for the transfer of fluids or gas into the interior of the laparoscopic working space in a closed-circuit fashion. At the top and bottom ends of the obturator, flexible hollow tubings are coupled to the end holes of the obturator's hollow channels. In working position, the obturator traverses the inner space of the previously placed laparoscopic port, with the outside diameter of the obturator, creating an airtight seal with the port's diaphragm seal. The flexible tubings that continue from the bottom/intracorporeal end of the obturator would rest inside the operative working space, for connection to any number of end-pieces that would complete the intracorporeal closed-circuit flow path. Applications of this device include transmission of chemotherapeutics, thermoregulated fluids for organ cooling/warming, and possibly even gas media. This obturator can also be designed to include a working channel among its hollow channels, so that a 5 mm laparoscopic instrument can be used through the obturator, at the same time as it is
In addition to licensing, the technology is available for further development through collaborative research with the inventors via a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA).
Available for licensing are monoclonal antibodies against HIV-1 viral protein R (Vpr) and the respective hybridoma cell lines expressing the same. The antibodies provide a means for detecting HIV-1 Vpr. Currently, the mechanism of HIV pathogenesis believe d to involve viral replication inside immune cells and other cells. At present, there are no clinical assays for detecting HIV-1 Vpr. Vpr circulates at detectable levels in the blood and is likely derived from degraded virions or released from infected cells. Vpr facilitates viral replication and disrupt normal cell function. Thus measurement of Vpr levels in blood, extracellular fluid, and tissue may be of benefit in understanding the pathogenesis of HIV-1 infection and its myriad complications.
The hybridoma cell line s (9F12 and 10F2) were selected from a group of hybridoma cell lines. These antibodies can be used for detection, including immunoasssays (ELISA) and immunoaffinity-capillary electrophoresis. The amount of detected HIV-1 Vpr is compared to a standardized control sample for determining the progress of disease or the presence of known complications like neuropathy, dementia, metabolic syndrome, or nephropathy.
In addition to licensing, the technology is available for further development through collaborative research with the inventors via a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA).
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 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 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,
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 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
The meetings 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 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.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance into the building by non-government employees. Persons without a government I.D. will need to show a photo I.D. and sign-in at the security desk upon entering the building.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 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
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 National Advisory Environmental Health Sciences Council.
The meetings 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 applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance into the building by non-government employees. Persons without a government I.D. will need to show a photo I.D. and sign-in at the security desk upon entering the building.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 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 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.
The National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) is developing its first 5-year strategic plan (2005-2009), and invites the public to provide input regarding NIBIB's areas of scientific emphasis, operational emphasis, and strategic priorities. The public is invited to provide comments via the NIBIB Web site.
The NIBIB was authorized by Public Law 106-580, which was signed into law by President William Clinton on December 29, 2000. The establishment of NIBIB provided an identity and a research home for the development and application of new technologies and techniques for the delivery of health care in the 21st century.
The mission of the NIBIB is to improve human health by leading the development and accelerating the application of biomedical technologies. The Institute is committed to integrating the engineering and physical sciences with the life sciences to advance basic research and medical care.
To accomplish this mission, the NIBIB has developed a set of goals, strategies, and objectives designed to maximize the Institute's impact on human health. These goals, strategies, and objectives provide the framework and action plan for the Institute's direction over the next five years, and determine how NIBIB will allocate resources to support and enhance scientific research.
The NIBIB wants to develop a process that considers the views of groups and individuals who are concerned about the Institute's programs. The public is invited to provide input electronically into the development of NIBIB's strategic plan for 2005-2009. Please visit the NIBIB Web site at
We are asking that electronic comments regarding the development of NIBIB's strategic plan be received by February 28, 2005. If you do not have access to a computer, the NIBIB will provide you with a copy of the material that is on the Web site. You may request
The NIBIB looks forward to working with the research community and the public to develop its strategic plan.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Mandatory Guidelines: Response to Public Comments.
In the
November 1, 2004.
Walter F. Vogl, Ph.D., Division of Workplace Programs, SAMHSA, Room #2-1035, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, Maryland 20857, telephone (240) 276-2600, fax (240) 276-2610, or e-mail:
The Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs(Mandatory Guidelines) establish the scientific and technical guidelines for Federal workplace drug testing programs and standards for certification of laboratories engaged in urine drug testing for Federal agencies, under authority of section 503 of Pub. L. 100-71, 5 U.S.C. 7301 note, and E. 0. No. 12564. The Mandatory Guidelines were first published in the
The April 13, 2004,
As stated in the April 13, 2004,
Several commenters recommended that the Department take one or more of the following actions with regard to the creatinine criterion:
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
HUD is requesting renewed approval to require Public Housing Agencies to obtain certificates of insurance from contractors and subcontractors before beginning work under either the development of a new low-income public housing project or the modernization of an existing project.
Comments Due Date: February 24, 2005.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2577-0046) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-6974.
Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, AYO, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; e-mail
This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or
Public Housing Agencies must obtain certificates of insurance from contractors and subcontractors before beginning work under either the development of a new low-income public housing project or the modernization of an existing project. The certificates of insurance provide evidence that worker's compensation and general liability, automobile liability insurance are in force before any construction work is started.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
HUD is requesting approval be reinstated for post award reporting on SHOP grant funding. SHOP provides for funds to purchase home sites and develop/improve infrastructure to support sweat equity and volunteer-based homeownership programs for low-income persons and families. This information collection is to measure performance goals and demonstrate the success of the program.
Comments Due Date: February 24, 2005.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2506-0157) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-6974.
Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, AYO, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; e-mail
This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name/or OMB Control number and should be sent to: Aneita Waites, Reports Liaison Officer, Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 4116, Washington, DC 20410-5000.
Aneita Waites, (202) 708-0713, extension 4114, for copies of the proposed forms and other available documents. (This is not a toll-free number).
The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
This Notice also lists the following information:
24 CFR section 906.17, which requires PHAs to maintain records (including sales and financial records) for all activities incident to implementation of the HUD-approved homeownership plan. In addition, the applicant is required to submit annual sales reports. Applicable portions of the regulations are attached.
For HUD-approved plans, PHAs will maintain records which may be subject to audit by HUD and the Government Accounting Office (GAO). In cases where implementation of the plan takes more than one year, PHAs will prepare annual reports and submit them to HUD.
Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents:
The information is currently collected electronically in the Public and Indian Housing Information Center (PIC). Statutory mandates and Federal program requirements would not be met if the collection is not conducted, or is conducted less frequently.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.
Draft Agenda for Board of Director' Meeting.
February 3, 2005.
4:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Guatemala City Marriott Hotel, 7 avenida 15-45, zona 9, Guatemala, Guatemala.
The meeting will be closed as provided in 22 CFR part 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 availability.
Robert Becker (Applicant) has applied for an incidental take permit (TE-098535-0) pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act (Act). The requested permit would authorize incidental take of the endangered Houston toad. The proposed take would occur as a result of the construction and occupation of a single family residence and associated structures on 0.5 acres (0.2 hectare) of a 6.58-acre (2.66 hectare) property located on Barras Road, Bastrop County, Texas.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be received on or before March 28, 2005.
Persons wishing to review the application may obtain a copy by writing to the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Room 4102, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103. Persons wishing to review the Environmental Assessment/Habitat Conservation Plan (EA/HCP) may obtain a copy by contacting Clayton Napier, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78758 (512-490-0057). Documents will be available for public inspection by written request, by appointment only, during normal business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin, Texas. Written data or comments concerning the application and EA/HCP should be submitted to the Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, Texas, at the above address. Please refer to permit number TE-098535-0 when submitting comments.
Clayton Napier at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, (512-490-0057).
Section 9 of the Act prohibits the “taking” of endangered species such as the Houston toad. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), under limited circumstances, may issue permits to take endangered wildlife species incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Regulations governing permits for endangered species are at 50 CFR 17.22.
The Service has prepared the EA/HCP for the incidental take application. A determination of jeopardy or non-jeopardy to the species and a decision pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will not be made until at least 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act and National Environmental Policy Act regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability and receipt of application.
The Lamont Public Utilities District (Applicant) has applied to the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for an incidental take permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The Service is considering the issuance of a 50-year permit to the Applicant that would authorize take of the endangered Tipton kangaroo rat (
We request comments from the public on the permit application and Environmental Assessment, both of which are available for review. The permit application includes the proposed Habitat Conservation Plan (Plan) and an accompanying Implementing Agreement. The Plan describes the proposed action and the measures that the Applicant would undertake to minimize and mitigate take of the covered species.
We must receive your written comments on or before March 28, 2005.
Please address written comments to Lori Rinek, Chief, Conservation Planning and Recovery Division, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, W-2605, Sacramento, California 95825. You also may send comments by facsimile to (916) 414-6713.
Jesse Wild, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, or Lori Rinek, Chief, Conservation Planning and Recovery Division at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at (916) 414-6600.
You may obtain copies of these documents for review by contacting Jesse Wild or Lori Rinek [see
Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulations prohibit the “take” of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Take of federally listed fish and wildlife is defined under the Act to include the
In response to California Regional Water Quality Board requirements, the Applicant proposes to expand their current sewage effluent disposal facility to the southeast onto an adjacent 160-acre parcel located about 2.5 miles directly south of the town of Lamont (0.5 mile south of Bear Mountain Boulevard, State Route 223), immediately to the west of Wheeler Ridge Road (State Route 184) in Kern County, California.
On the northwest corner of the site, the Applicant proposes to construct two treatment ponds on approximately 21 acres. This pond construction would be located in unoccupied and previously disturbed areas as reported by completed survey and trapping records. Activities presently occurring in this area include composting and agriculture. The remaining 139 acres of the propetry would be graded for access roads, leveled, and planted in corn, alfalfa, or other forage crops for non-human consumption that can be irrigated and harvested periodically through standard cultivating and harvesting techniques.
A series of terraced benches may be constructed on the east side of the site, which is designated for agricultural use. Effluent would be spread aerially onto the benches, which would be about 600 feet wide, with a 4-foot gently-sloped drop between each bench. The terraced leaching benches would be used sequentially, allowing evaporation and infiltration of the effluent into the soil while water is being spread on other benches. The effluent would be spread on each pad as needed. Following the completion of infiltration and drying, each bench would be disked several times each year to maintain the highest levels of permeability and percolation. Winter wheat, corn, alfalfa, or another forage crop may be planted on the benches and harvested periodically.
The project site contained about 19 acres of habitat occupied by the Tipton kangaroo rat, according to survey trapping and mapping efforts concluded in 1995. The Service has concluded that implementation of the proposed project will likely result in take of Tipton kangaroo rats through the removal or repeated disturbance of habitat on the site.
Although no San Joaquin kit foxes were observed nor evidence found of their denning at the time of biological surveys, they may range through and periodically use the site for foraging and/or denning. The expansion and operation of the facilities is unlikely to result in direct mortality or injury of San Joaquin kit foxes, but may result in take in the form of harassment.
The western burrowing owl may occupy California ground squirrel (
The Applicant proposes to implement specific measures to minimize take and associated adverse project impacts to covered species. The Applicant also proposes to mitigate for take by purchase of 57 acres of compensation credits at the California Department of Fish and Game's Coles Levee Preserve in Kern County which supports all of the covered species. The compensation includes funds supporting a management endowment to ensure the permanent management and monitoring of sensitive species and habitats within the area protected by the Coles Levee Preserve.
The Service's Environmental Assessment considers the environmental consequences of the following alternatives. Alternative A consists of no permit issuance and no expansion of the Applicant's effluent disposal site at this time. Compared to the Preferred Alternative, Alternative A would result in less long-term conservation for the covered species within Kern County, and the Applicant would be in continued violation of California Regional Water Quality Board regulations. Alternative B (or the Preferred Alternative) consists of the issuance of the incidental take permit and implementation of the Plan and Implementing Agreement.
In addition, two additional alternatives were considered but eliminated from analysis. Alternative C discusses the option of constructing a sewage recycling plant with zero discharge. This type of plant is technologically feasible and would occupy much less land than one requiring an effluent spreading ground in accordance with State and Federal regulations. This alternative would result in less take of covered species habitat than the Preferred Alternative. However, it is extremely costly and, therefore, not an economically feasible alternative for the small town of Lamont. Alternative D discusses the purchase of a site for effluent disposal other than the one proposed in the Preferred Alternative. Surrounding sites have not been surveyed for covered species, so it has not been determined that there would be more or less take at any alternative site. Additionally, no sites are available for purchase within close proximity to the existing ponds that are not already in dairy or agriculture. Conserving prime agricultural land is also a concern, therefore, the use of the site in Alternative B is preferable since it has been degraded in various ways and would require modification prior to conventional agricultural activities.
Pursuant to an order issued on June 10, 2004, by the District Court for the District of Columbia in
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(a) of the Act and the regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (40 CFR 1506.6). All comments that we receive, including names and addresses, will become part of the official administrative record and may be made available to the public. We will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of NEPA regulations and section 10(a) of the Act. If we determine that those requirements are met, we will issue a
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of document availability and notice of review.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces the availability for public review of the Draft Barton Springs Salamander Recovery Plan (Draft Recovery Plan). The Barton Springs salamander (
Comments on the Draft Recovery Plan are due by March 28, 2005 to assure consideration. Information and materials for consideration in this 5-year review of the Barton Springs salamander must be received no later than March 28, 2005. However, we will continue to accept new information about any listed species at any time.
Persons wishing to review the Draft Recovery Plan may obtain it from the Internet at
Robert Pine, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, at the above address; telephone (512) 490-0057, facsimile (512) 490-0974.
The Barton Springs salamander was listed as endangered on May 30, 1997, under authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (62 FR 23377). The water that discharges from Barton Springs is essential to the survival of the salamander. Barton Springs is a segment of the Edwards Aquifer, a karst limestone aquifer containing a complex system of caves, sinkholes, fractures, and faults. The Edwards Aquifer is particularly vulnerable to contamination and land use changes that degrade the quality of stormwater runoff. The primary threat facing the survival and recovery of this species is the degradation of water quality and quantity of water that feeds Barton Springs. This degradation has resulted from urbanization over the Barton Springs watershed (including roadway, residential, commercial, and industrial development). The Draft Recovery Plan includes information about the species, provides recovery objectives and criteria, and describes the actions needed to recover the species such that it no longer warrants listing as endangered or threatened.
The Draft Recovery Plan proposes reclassification of the Barton Springs salamander from endangered to threatened when the following criteria have been met: (1) Mechanisms (such as laws, rules, regulations, and cooperative agreements) are in place to ensure nondegradation of water quality in the Barton Springs watershed; (2) a plan to avoid, respond to, and remediate hazardous materials spills within the Barton Springs watershed is in place with high priority measures implemented to minimize risks to the Barton Springs salamander; (3) measures to ensure that continuous, natural springflows are maintained at all four spring outlets are in place and effective; (4) a healthy, self-sustaining natural population of Barton Springs salamanders is maintained within its historical range; (5) measures to remove local threats to the Barton Springs ecosystem have been implemented; (6) at least two genetically representative captive populations of Barton Springs salamanders have been established in secure locations with the completion of a captive propagation and contingency plan.
The Draft Recovery Plan proposes the delisting of the Barton Springs salamander when the downlisting criteria have been achieved and the following additional criteria have been met: (1) Water quality protection mechanisms are shown to be effective and commitments are in place to continue protection; (2) measures to implement the catastrophic spill avoidance, response and remediation plans are ensured; (3) measures to maintain adequate springflows are shown to be effective; (4) the Barton Springs salamander population is shown to be viable and stable or increasing; (5) measures to remove local threats to the Barton Springs ecosystem are shown to be effective and a commitment is in place to continue the appropriate management of the surface habitat; and (6) captive breeding is shown to be effective and reliable and commitments are in place to maintain adequate captive populations for any needed restoration work.
Because the Barton Springs salamander relies on continuous flow of clean spring water, many of the high-priority recovery tasks outlined in the Draft Recovery Plan include actions to ensure adequate water quality and quantity within the Barton Springs watershed such as: (1) Developing and implementing catastrophic spill avoidance, response, and remediation plans; (2) implementing programs to protect sensitive environmental features important to salamander habitat or the effective recharge of clean water such as caves, sinkholes, fissures, springs, and riparian zones; (3) developing and implementing programs to identify and correct problems from point and non-point source pollution discharges; and (4) creating a regional management
Restoring an endangered or threatened animal or plant to the point where it is again a secure, self-sustaining member of its ecosystem is a primary goal of the Service's endangered species program. To help guide the recovery effort, the Service is working to prepare recovery plans for most of the listed species native to the United States. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for conservation of listed species, establish criteria for downlisting or delisting those species, and estimate time and cost for implementing the necessary recovery measures.
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, as amended in 1988, requires that public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment be provided during recovery plan development. The Service considers all information presented during a public comment period prior to approval of each new or revised recovery plan. The Service and others also take these comments into account in the course of implementing recovery plans.
The Draft Recovery Plan is being submitted for review to all interested parties and for independent peer review. After consideration of comments received during the review period, and including new information and materials provided for the 5-year status review, the Draft Recovery Plan will be prepared for final approval.
Under the Act, the Service maintains a list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plant species at 50 CFR 17.11 (for animals) and 17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires that we conduct a status review of listed species at least once every five years. Then, on the basis of such reviews under section 4(c)(2)(B), we determine whether or not any species should be removed from the List (delisted), or reclassified from endangered to threatened or from threatened to endangered (downlisted). Delisting a species must be supported by the best scientific and commercial data available and only considered if such data substantiates that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The species is considered extinct; (2) the species is considered to be recovered; and/or (3) the original data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such data, were in error. Any change in Federal classification would require a separate rulemaking process. The regulations in 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the
The City of Austin initiated Barton Springs salamander surveys in 1993, and is currently conducting monthly surveys of salamanders at all known salamander locations. Although monitoring of the status of the Barton Springs salamander is an ongoing process, the Service is now initiating an active, periodic review on the status of the Barton Springs salamander in accordance with section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act. This information may include population trend data and information on the threats faced by the salamander. The recovery planning process is an appropriate time to conduct an active review of a species' status, as the Service is actively seeking all relevant information on the salamander and the threats it faces. This notice announces our active review of the Barton Springs salamander, which is currently listed as endangered.
A 5-year review considers all new information available at the time of the review. These reviews will consider the best scientific and commercial data that has become available since the current listing determination or most recent status review of each species, such as:
A. Species biology including, but not limited to, population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;
B. Habitat conditions including, but not limited to, amount, distribution, and suitability;
C. Conservation measures that have been implemented to benefit the species;
D. Threat status and trends (see five factors under heading “How do we determine whether a species is endangered or threatened?”); and
E. Other new information, data, or corrections including, but not limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.
The List is found in 50 CFR 17.11 (wildlife) and 17.12 (plants). Amendments to the List through final rules are published in the
The following definitions are provided to assist those persons considering submission of information regarding the species being reviewed:
A.
B.
C.
Section 4(a)(1) of the Act establishes that we determine whether a species is endangered or threatened based on one or more of the five following factors:
A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
B. Over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
C. Disease or predation;
D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Section 4(a)(1) of the Act requires that our determination be made on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
If new information concerning Barton Springs salamander indicates a change in classification may be warranted, we may propose a new rule that could do one of the following: (a) Reclassify the species from endangered to threatened; or (b) remove the species from the List. If we determine that a change in classification is not warranted for
The Service solicits written comments on the draft recovery plan described above. All comments received by the date specified above will be considered prior to approval of the recovery plan.
To ensure that the 5-year status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are also soliciting new information from the public, concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, environmental entities, and any other interested parties concerning the status of the Barton Springs salamander.
Comments on the draft recovery plan and information and/or materials for the 5-year review should be provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see
This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) management policies, the BLM announces the availability of the ROD/RMPA for Federal fluid minerals leasing and development in Sierra and Otero Counties, New Mexico. The New Mexico State Director has signed the ROD/RMPA, which amends the White Sands RMP.
Copies of the fluid minerals ROD/RMPA are available upon request from the Field Manager, Las Cruces Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 1800 Marquess St., Las Cruces, NM 88005 or via the Internet at
Tom Phillips, RMPA Team Leader/Land Use Planner, 1800 Marquess St., Las Cruces, NM 88005. Telephone number is (505) 525-4377, email address is
The fluid minerals RMPA was developed with broad public participation through a 6-year public planning process. This RMPA addresses management of the Federal fluid mineral resources on approximately 2.1 million acres of public lands in the planning area. The fluid minerals RMPA is designed to identify which lands under BLM jurisdiction in Sierra and Otero Counties will be made available for potential fluid mineral leasing, and what measures are needed to manage those lands and protect other resource values.
The approved fluid minerals RMPA is relatively unchanged from the proposed plan in the Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment/Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMPA/FEIS), dated December 2003. In response to the PRMPA/FEIS, the Governor of New Mexico submitted a Consistency Review that recommended adopting an alternative plan he had developed. This alternative was similar to an alternative that was analyzed by the BLM in the draft and final environmental impact statements; therefore, the BLM determined it did not require an additional public comment period. The Governor's Consistency Review helped lead to the May 2004 PRMPA/FEIS Supplement that included the proposed closure of 35,790 acres to leasing. This closure was a change from the proposed plan in the PRMPA/FEIS where those acres were to be withheld from leasing for five years and re-evaluated. The BLM New Mexico State Director declined to accept the other recommendations made by the Governor, but replied with a written response addressing issues raised in the Consistency Review. Public comments on the supplement were taken for 30 days, and those comments have been considered and addressed in the ROD/RMPA.
The Governor appealed the State Director's decision not to fully adopt his alternative plan to the BLM Director. The BLM Director has issued a final response affirming the State Director's decision. All formal protests to the PRMPA/FEIS have also been resolved.
Minor modifications have been made to the proposed plan as set forth in the PRMPA/FEIS and Supplement. The modifications corrected errors noted in the review of the PRMPA/FEIS and provide further clarification regarding some of the decisions.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is publishing the reasons for BLM's rejection of the Governor of New Mexico's appeal regarding the Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA) for Fluid Minerals Leasing and Development in Sierra and Otero Counties, New Mexico.
Jordan Pope, Acting Group Manager; Planning, Assessment, and Community Support Group, 1620 L Street NW., Washington DC 22036. Telephone number (202) 452-5048. Email address
In response to the Proposed RMPA/Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), dated December 2003, the Governor of New Mexico submitted a Consistency Review that recommended adopting an alternative plan he had developed. The Governor's Consistency Review helped lead to the May 2004 PRMPA/FEIS Supplement that included the proposed closure of 35,790 acres. This closure was a change from the PRMPA/FEIS where those acres were to be withheld from leasing for five years and re-evaluated. The BLM New Mexico State Director declined to accept the other recommendations made by the Governor, but replied with a written response addressing issues raised in the Consistency Review. The Governor appealed the State Director's decision not to fully adopt his alternative plan to the BLM Director. The BLM Director has issued a final response affirming the State Director's decision. The response to the Governor is printed below in its entirety.
Dear Governor Richardson: This appeal concerns the ongoing land use planning amendment process for Sierra and Otero Counties in New Mexico. Currently, fluid minerals
Governor Richardson, you have appealed the decision of BLM State Director Linda Rundell made in accordance with BLM planning regulations at 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e).
In October 2000, the BLM Las Cruces, New Mexico Field Office released the
BLM New Mexico State Director Linda Rundell made the Proposed RMPA/EIS available to you and the public. On March 5, 2004, you sent the State Director your
State Director Rundell subsequently responded to your
In deciding this appeal, I am guided by the BLM's planning regulations in 43 CFR 1610.3-2 (
In the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary shall * * * to the extent consistent with the laws governing the administration of the public lands, coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and management activities of or for such lands with the land use planning and management programs of other Federal departments and agencies and of the States and local governments within which the lands are located * * * by among other things, considering the policies of approved State and tribal land resource management programs. In implementing this directive, the Secretary shall, to the extent he finds practical, * * * assure that consideration is given to those State, local and tribal plans that are germane in the development of land use plans for public lands; assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal Government plans, and shall provide for meaningful public involvement of State and local government officials, both elected and appointed, in the development of land use programs.* * * Such officials in each State are authorized to furnish advice to the Secretary with respect to the development and revision of land use plans. Land use plans of the Secretary under this section shall be consistent with State and local plans to the maximum extent he finds consistent with Federal law and the purposes of this Act.
The “Consistency requirements” regulations state that RMP amendments shall be consistent with officially approved or adopted state “resource related plans, and the policies and programs contained therein * * * so long as the guidance and resource management plans are also consistent with the purposes, policies and programs of Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands.” 43 CFR 1610.3-2(a). Also, in the absence of such plans, RMPs shall “to the maximum extent practical” be consistent with officially approved and adopted state “resource related policies and programs.” 43 CFR 1610.3-2(b). After a BLM State Director makes a proposed amendment available to a governor, the regulations provide a special means for noting inconsistencies and making recommendations:
The Governor(s) shall have 60 days in which to identify inconsistencies and provide recommendations in writing to the State Director. * * * If the State Director does not accept the recommendations of the Governor(s), the State Director shall notify the Governor(s) and the Governor(s) shall have 30 days in which to submit a written appeal to the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. The Director shall accept the recommendations of the Governor(s) if he/she determines that they provide for a reasonable balance between the national interest and the State's interest. The Director shall communicate to the Governor(s) in writing and publish in the
Thus, in reviewing this appeal, I have focused on your
Your appeal letter and
You have asserted that the
After the
You have expressed a desire to see Congress designate approximately 643,754 acres as a National Conservation Area, and have requested that the BLM manage these areas consistent with your legislative request. While I appreciate your input on this issue, a request for federal congressional action is not a qualifying state plan, policy, or program that is directly relevant to this appeal. Should such a designation occur in the future, BLM will, of course, manage those lands in accordance with the congressional mandate.
You assert that the proposed plan is inconsistent with New Mexico Statutes sections 17-2-37 through 17-2-46, known as the Wildlife Conservation Act. That act establishes the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) and defines its authority. You have not identified a specific inconsistency though, and I can find no inconsistency with the statutes you have cited. Specific NMDGF wildlife plans are discussed separately below. In your appeal letter, you have noted habitat fragmentation as a general concern. Certainly, this is a concern for the New Mexico BLM as well and the topic has been addressed in the environmental impact statement.
You have asserted that the “PRMPA/FEIS” change to standard lease terms and conditions in Alternative A (modified) is inconsistent with several of NMDGF's specific endeavors and plans.”
In August 2003, the NMDGF developed the
The
Oil and gas activities are not discussed at length in the
The
To have a minimum of 500 free-ranging desert bighorn sheep in at least 3 geographically distinct self-sustaining populations, each of which contains at least 100 bighorn, and to delist the subspecies under the New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act at that time.
Additonally, it should be noted that merely making areas available for leasing in an RMP does not dictate that leases must be issued and development must occur. These areas have been open to leasing for decades without activities occurring. Further, under the standard lease terms and conditions, BLM retains the ability to prevent the location of surface disturbing activities in environmentally sensitive areas. The extreme slopes associated with bighorn sheep terrain, as a practical matter, may often prevent a conflict with oil and gas activities.
Both the
Nevertheless, the New Mexico BLM State Director has agreed to defer any leasing in the Caballo Mountains for five years as the NMDGF continues to evaluate the area for possible reintroduction efforts. The State Director will then evaluate the progress of NMDGF, and, if BLM finds it unlikely that reintroduction would occur within the life of the
The NMDGF completed the
The plan outlines a number of broad objectives and lists potential strategies. One objective is to achieve 97,000 acres of occupied habitat statewide within 10 years based upon a 6.5% annual increase.
As you may be aware, the State of New Mexico currently manages the black-tailed prairie dog as a “rodent pest” under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture,
I find that the
The New Mexico Noxious Weed Management Act authorizes the creation of weed control districts. You have not described any inconsistency with the act, its implementing regulations, or specific weed management plans in your
The
The
I do not find an inconsistency between the
Regarding the Water Quality Control Commission, you have cited section 74-6-12 of the state code, prohibiting water quality impairments that exceed standards. BLM agrees that water quality standards should not be exceeded.
Your January 31, 2004 Executive Order 2004-005 directed that the Oil Conservation Division (OCD) “shall adopt a moratorium prohibiting the use of pits at Otero Mesa” and “shall immediately propose rules to prohibit pits associated with any oil and gas drilling at Otero Mesa.” The executive order also directed OCD to “prepare and propose regulations to implement produced water re-injection standards and controls.” As you can imagine, it was difficult for the State Director to assess consistency with rules that were not yet even proposed. Yet, even though the executive order was issued after the
In your appeal letter, you have described the New Mexico BLM position as “helpful” and, thus, there is apparently now no alleged inconsistency to address.
You expressed concern with the New Mexico BLM's consultation process regarding cultural resources. While you have cited a number of federal statutes, regulations, and guidance documents, you have not discussed any alleged inconsistencies with state resource related plans, policies or programs. You have noted the existence of the New Mexico Cultural Properties Act, but you have not alleged any inconsistency with state plans, policies, or programs instituted under that statute.
Ensuring that BLM properly consults with tribes and other relevant parties is a high priority for me, and I have noted your concerns. However, this consistency review appeal response is not the proper forum for examining the New Mexico BLM's compliance with the federal statutes you have listed. Some of these issues were raised in protests, and they are more appropriately addressed in that context.
Regarding your policy of government-to-government relations with tribes, BLM agrees that tribes have certain sovereign powers and should be treated accordingly. Contrary to your statement in the
Concerns about the application of NEPA and other federal statutes are not potential inconsistencies with state resource related plans, policies, and programs that can be addressed in this context. Your comments have been noted and will be considered in the decision making process. As you know, the New Mexico BLM did issue a
The
I find that you have not raised any actual inconsistencies with state resource related plans, policies, or programs. Much of what was presented in your
I also note that several aspects of your recommended plan do not appear to be consistent with the current management of New Mexico state lands that are leased for oil and gas development. For example, the leased state lands in the Otero Mesa desert grassland area are not bound by the extensive “No Surface Occupancy” stipulations that you recommend for similar federal public lands. Additionally, several of your other recommended leasing stipulations—such as
The consistency review process is generally designed to highlight specific inconsistencies between proposed BLM actions and officially approved state resource related plans, policies, and programs. Although you have not raised the type of inconsistencies associated with review under section 1610.3-2 of the BLM planning regulations, I recognize that you have documented a variety of concerns and disagreements with the
Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), BLM must “use and observe the principles of multiple use” when developing and revising land use plans. 43 U.S.C. 1712 (c)(1). Through the land use planning process BLM makes choices among a host of possible land uses. The multiple use mandate does not require that all uses be available upon every acre of public land. Indeed, the choice of one use in a particular area, by its very nature, may exclude some possible uses while being compatible with still others. Overall, however, the public lands managed by BLM are utilized by the nation in an astonishingly wide variety of ways.
Here, the New Mexico BLM has proposed to amend the
In short, when making land use decisions BLM must balance a variety of interests. Of particular importance here is the national interest in domestic oil and gas production. In the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 Congress declared,
[I]t is the continuing policy of the Federal Government in the national interest to foster and encourage private enterprise in (1) the development of economically sound and stable domestic mining, minerals,
[I]t is the policy of the United States that * * * the public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands including implementation of the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970. * * *
Similarly, the State of New Mexico shares an interest in the development of oil and gas resources in Sierra and Otero Counties. The State of New Mexico would receive one half of the royalties paid on any oil or gas produced from these public lands. Also, the state is a major landowner within these two counties and has already leased thousands of acres of land for oil and gas development in this same area. Patrick H. Lyons, the State of New Mexico Commissioner of Public Lands, provided New Mexico BLM with written comments during the most recent public comment period. In his comments, the Commissioner stated,
The state's trust holding in the greater Otero Mesa area are second only to the federal acreage position and with these vast holdings comes a keen awareness of the potential to develop a secure, domestic energy resource and produce significant long-term revenue for New Mexico, while at the same time recognizing the need to harmonize development with environmental and cultural resource protection.
Comments were also received from the Otero County Economic Development Council. The Council's president stated, “We feel that the addition of an oil and natural gas industry to Otero County is an important diversification of our economy and will shore up the jobs lost in recent years to the decline in the forest industry. We feel that your plan adequately addresses the balance between this new industry and environmental concerns.”
I would be remiss if I did not give some consideration to the views of the Commissioner of Public Lands and local leaders when reviewing the balance of national and state interests. I am also aware, however, that many public leaders, organizations, and individuals from within and beyond New Mexico expressed a wide range of views on this topic. Some opposed any development; some supported your alternative; some supported the preferred plan in the
In your appeal you have noted the state's interest in the natural character, water resources, wildlife, and cultural resources found in Sierra and Otero Counties. Clearly, there is a national interest in these as well. FLPMA, in addition to recognizing the need for domestic sources of minerals, also states it is the policy of the United States that,
The public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use.
43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(8). I have taken these interests into account as I have considered your appeal. I recognize that the Chihuahuan Desert is a special place, and BLM plays an important role in the proper management of this region.
In your appeal, you have stated that the proposed plan's 5% rule allows “disturbance of 5,244 acres in the Otero Mesa grasslands.” (
Also, allow me to clarify the relationship between
You have recommended the following land designations for the approximately 2.1 million acre planning area: 310,554 acres of discretionary leasing closures; 333,200 acres that would be open to leasing but subject to a “No Surface Occupancy” stipulation; 894,264 acres open to leasing but subject to expanded stipulations; and 709,350 acres open subject to standard leasing terms and conditions. As you noted in your appeal, these recommendations are similar to “Alternative B,” first described in the
I believe the BLM's current proposed plan balances the need to allow for exploration activities with the need to protect wildlife habitat, water resources and the overall environmental health of the area. After reviewing your appeal, however, I cannot say that your recommended plan provides a reasonable balance of the national and state interests involved because your plan would make exploration activities difficult or impossible over a majority of the planning area.
Your recommended plan would completely close 310,554 acres (15% of the planning area) to any drilling, including directional drilling from offsite well pads. Your recommendation would also place a “No Surface Occupancy” (NSO) stipulation on 333,200 acres (16% of the planning area). Under such a stipulation, exploration and development could only be done on the margins of the NSO areas via directional wells started offsite. Your proposal also includes twelve leasing stipulations. Some of these proposed stipulations closely parallel existing BLM best management practices (BMPs).
It is important to remember that Sierra and Otero Counties are
In your appeal you state, “Directional drilling allows for production and is the way to reconcile state and national policies in this area.”
At least one expert familiar with the planning area, Ronald F. Broadhead (Associate Director and Principal Senior Petroleum Geologist of the New Mexico Bureau of Mines & Mineral Resources) has concluded, “In frontier exploration areas such as Sierra and Otero Counties, exploration and initial development must be accomplished through the drilling of vertical, and not horizontal, wells.”
For example, in Township 24 South, Range 13 East, your plan would place a three mile by six mile area under an NSO stipulation (sections 7-24). This 18 square mile rectangle is bounded either by non-federal land or by still more land subject to the NSO stipulation. Assuming that ground access for directional drilling was possible from the non-federal NSO boundaries, a well would face a minimum horizontal displacement of 1.5 miles in order to explore targets in the center of sections 13 through 18. Thus, the uncertainty associated with a frontier exploration area and the large contiguous tracts involved combine to make exploration in much of your NSO zone highly unfeasible.
It is common knowledge that a directionally drilled well is more costly and complicated than a comparable depth single vertical well.
As previously discussed, you have not identified inconsistencies with state resource related plans, policies, and programs. Neither are your recommendations for federal public lands completely consistent with the management practices on state lands with oil and gas resources. Nevertheless, I have instructed the New Mexico BLM to take steps to further strengthen its support for the state plans, policies, and programs that you have noted. Among these steps are expanded protection for potential bighorn sheep habitat and occupied black-tailed prairie dog habitat in the planning area.
Also, I have reviewed your complete recommended alternative as you requested. In short, your recommendations would place some 1,538,018 acres (75% of the planning area), either off-limits to drilling completely or under stipulations that place significant barriers to effective exploration and development. Such a plan is unbalanced. Your recommended plan does not give reasonable consideration to the federal and state interest in domestic energy exploration and production in Sierra and Otero Counties, and it adds little significant protection for other natural resources. I therefore cannot approve your recommended alternative and must deny your appeal.
The BLM proposed plan allows a reasonable opportunity for exploration and development, but the plan does not ignore the important environmental interests of the area. The plan closes the six Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) to leasing. It also closes eight areas that have been nominated for ACEC status. As you previously recommended, the BLM proposed plan will not allow any fluid mineral leasing in the 35,790 acres of potential Aplomado falcon habitat located in the Nutt and Otero Mesa grassland areas. The broader grassland areas are subject to protective stipulations, including the 5% maximum disturbance rule. All of this is under the umbrella of the RFD-based analysis that anticipates short term disturbance from oil and gas activities of 1,589 acres throughout this nearly 2.1 million acre planning area. That disturbed area is less than one-tenth of 1% of the entire planning area. The proposed plan also includes strict landscape reclamation standards that will be applied to any areas of disturbance. I believe the BLM proposed plan offers a reasonable balance between energy needs and environmental considerations and improves the management regime found in the currently effective 1986
Again, I thank you for your participation in the land use planning process for Sierra and Otero Counties. Your appeal is hereby denied, and I affirm the decision of the New Mexico State Director. Although I have denied this appeal, it is my hope that the New Mexico BLM and the State of New Mexico will continue to communicate and cooperate on future issues.
Sincerely,
Bureau of Land Management.
Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to inform the public and interested State and local government officials of the filing of Plats of Survey in Nevada.
Filing is effective at 10 a.m. on the dates indicated below.
David D. Morlan, Chief, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., P.O. Box 12000, Reno, Nevada 89520, 775-861-6541.
1. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada, on December 16, 2004:
2. The above-listed survey is now the basic record for describing the lands for all authorized purposes. This survey has been placed in the open files in the BLM Nevada State Office and is available to the public as a matter of information. Copies of the survey and related field notes may be furnished to the public upon payment of the appropriate fees.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) and notice of scoping meetings.
Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) intends to prepare an EIS to evaluate Contra Costa Water District's (CCWD's) proposed Alternative Intake Project. The project purpose is to protect and improve water quality for CCWD's customers. The proposed action includes the construction of a new intake and fish screen in the Central Delta, a pumping plant, and an associated pipeline from the new intake to CCWD's Old River Pumping Plant on Old River. The proposed action would involve adding a new point of diversion to certain existing water rights held by CCWD and by Reclamation. In addition to the proposed action, other alternatives will be evaluated that may include different intake locations, desalination, and other treatment options. Potential Federal involvement may include the approval of an additional point of diversion pursuant to CCWD's water service contract with Reclamation, and operational changes. The EIS will be combined with an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by CCWD pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Three public scoping meetings will be held to solicit comments from interested parties to assist in determining the scope of the environmental analysis, including the alternatives to be addressed, and to identify the significant environmental issues related to the proposed action. The meeting dates are:
• Tuesday, February 15, 6-8 p.m. in Concord, California.
• Wednesday, February 16, 10 a.m.-12 p.m. in Sacramento, California.
• Thursday, February 17, 6-8 p.m. in Antioch, California.
Written comments on the scope of the environmental document, alternatives, and impacts to be considered should be sent to Ms. Samantha Salvia at the address below. All comments are requested by March 4, 2005.
The scoping meetings will be held at:
• Concord at the CCWD Board Room, Contra Costa Water District, 1331 Concord Avenue.
• Sacramento at the Federal Building Cafeteria Conference Room C-1001, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way.
• Antioch at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Hall, 815 Fulton Shipyard Road.
Ms. Samantha Salvia, Project Manager, Contra Costa Water District, P.O. Box H2O, Concord, CA 94524-2099, (925) 688-8057,
CCWD's mission is “to strategically provide its service area with a reliable supply of high-quality water at the lowest cost possible, in an environmentally responsible manner.” CCWD relies entirely upon the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for its supply, which includes both Central Valley Project (CVP) water and water diverted under CCWD water rights. Water quality problems for CCWD result from elevated concentrations of salinity, minerals, bromide and organic carbon, and turbidity in Delta source water. These constituents can cause taste and odor problems for consumers and may contribute to health risks in some individuals. Water quality degradation in the Delta from increased diversions, upstream development, and runoff, have made it more difficult for CCWD to meet increasingly stringent drinking water regulations and the water quality objectives that CCWD has set for service to its customers.
To continue to protect and improve water quality delivered to its customers, CCWD is initiating a two-year planning study that will evaluate the benefits of CCWD adding a new, screened intake and conveyance system in the southwest portion of the central Delta, to access better source water quality. The study will complete project planning, alternatives analyses, a joint EIR/EIS, permitting, and preliminary engineering design by mid-2006. At that point, it will be decided whether to proceed with design and construction of the recommended project.
The proposed project would add a new intake at a location with better quality water, but would not increase CCWD's total diversion capacity (rate or annual quantity). The existing Old River Intake and Pump Station, with a current capacity of 250 cubic feet per second (cfs), would remain in place. The new up to 250 cfs intake would provide CCWD with the operational flexibility to divert water from Old River or the new intake to provide the highest water quality for CCWD customers (the total maximum diversion rate of 250 cfs would not change). A new pipeline, approximately two to four miles in length, would convey water from the new intake, in the southwest portion of the Delta, to CCWD's existing Old River conveyance system.
The proposed project would involve adding a new point of diversion to certain existing water rights held by CCWD and by Reclamation. CCWD would not seek to increase its water rights, CVP contract amounts, or Los Vaqueros Reservoir filling or release rates through this project; CCWD and Reclamation would only seek to add a new point of diversion.
If implemented, it is anticipated that the project would help protect CCWD customers' future water quality, ensure that CCWD is able to meet or exceed future drinking water regulatory requirements, and provide increased operational flexibility. The project would be developed in a way that avoids or minimizes impacts, including impacts to Delta water users and to the environment.
The environmental review will be conducted pursuant to NEPA, CEQA, the federal and state Endangered Species Acts, and other applicable laws, to analyze the potential environmental impacts of implementing a range of feasible alternatives. There are no known Indian Trust Assets or environmental justice issues associated with the proposed action. Public input on the range of alternatives to be considered will be sought through the public scoping process.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from public disclosure, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public disclosure in their entirety.
Office on Violence Against Women, Justice.
Notice of meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of the forthcoming public meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women (hereinafter “the Committee”).
The meeting will take place on February 10, 2005, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. and on February 11, 2005, from 8:30 am to 12 noon.
The meeting will take place at the Westin Embassy Row, 2100 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20008.
Jana Sinclair White, The National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women, 810 Seventh Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20531; by telephone at: (202) 307-6026; e-mail:
Notice of this meeting is required under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Committee is chartered by the Attorney General, and co-chaired by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary), to provide the Attorney General and the Secretary with practical and general policy advice concerning implementation of the
This meeting will primarily focus on the Committee's work; there will, however, be an opportunity for public comment on the Committee's role in providing general policy guidance on implementation of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, and related laws.
Given the expected number of individuals interested in presenting comments at the meeting, reservations should be made as soon as possible. Persons unable to obtain reservations to speak during the meetings are encouraged to submit written comments, which will be accepted at the meeting site or may be mailed to the Committee at 810 Seventh Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20531.
30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Registrants' Inventory of Drugs Surrendered—DEA Form 41.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) 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. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until February 24, 2005. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-5806.
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, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.
30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Controlled Substances Import/Export Declaration—DEA Form 236.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) 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. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until February 24, 2005. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-5806. 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) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Controlled Substances Import/Export Declaration—DEA Form 236.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: Form Number: DEA Form 236. Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit. Other: None. Abstract: The DEA-236 provides the DEA with control measures over the importation and exportation of controlled substances as required by United States drug control laws and international treaties.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: DEA estimates that it takes 30 minutes to complete each form. DEA estimates that 224 respondents respond, as needed, to this collection.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: DEA estimates that this collection has an annual burden of 2,170 hours.
If additional information is required contact: Brenda E. Dyer, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530.
30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Report of Theft or Loss of Controlled Substances—DEA Form 106.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP) 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. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until February 24, 2005. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-5806. Written comments and
(1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Report of Theft or loss of Controlled Substances—DEA form 106.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: Form Number: DEA Form 106. Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit. Other: Not-for-profit, State, local or tribal government. Title 21 CFR 1301.74(c) and 1301.76(b) require DEA registrants to complete and submit a DEA-106 upon discovery of a theft or significant loss of controlled substances. This provides accurate accountability and allows DEA to monitor substances diverted for illicit purposes.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: DEA estimates that 5,659 registrants submit 8,310 forms annually for this collection. DEA estimates that each response takes 30 minutes.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: DEA estimates that this collection has a public burden of 4,155 hours annually.
If additional information is required contact: Brenda E. Dyer, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.
On March 16, 2004, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to Al-Alousi, Inc. (AAI) proposing to deny its March 31, 2003, application for DEA Certificate of Registration as a distributor of list I chemicals. The Order to Show Cause alleged that granting AAI's application would be inconsistent with the public interest, as that term is used in 21 U.S.C. 823(h).
According to the DEA investigative file, the Order to Show Cause was sent by certified mail to AAI at its proposed registered location at 8760 Greenwell Springs Road, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. On April 14, 2004, AAI's owner, Mr. Humam Al-Alousi, requested a hearing and on April 26, 2004, Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner ordered the parties to file prehearing statements by June 7, 2004. This date was later extended until August 24, 2004. As a result of AAI's failure to file a prehearing statement, Judge Bittner considered its hearing right to have been waived and issued an Order Terminating Proceedings on September 3, 2004. The investigative case file was then forwarded to the Deputy Administrator for a final order pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.46.
The Deputy Administrator finds that AAI has waived its hearing right and after considering relevant material from the investigative file, now enters her final order without a hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 1309.53(c) and (d) and 1316.67. The Deputy Administrator finds as follows.
List I chemicals are those that may be used in the manufacture of a controlled substance in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. 21 U.S.C. 802(34); 21 CFR 1310.02(a). Pseudoephedrine and ephedrine are list I chemicals commonly used to illegally manufacture methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance. As noted in previous DEA final orders, methamphetamine is an extremely potent central nervous system stimulant, and its abuse is a persistent and growing problem in the United States.
The Deputy Administrator's review of the investigative file reveals that AAI's president is Mr. Al-Alousi and his wife, Lois Al-Alousi, is vice-president. On or about March 31, 2003, an application was submitted by Mrs. Al-Alousi on behalf of AAI, seeking registration to distribute ephedrine and pseudoephedrine list I chemical products. Subsequently, AAI advised DEA that its application would only be for a registration to distribute pseudoephedrine products.
In connection with the pending application, an on-site pre-registration investigation was conducted at the proposed registered location in May 2003. Mr. Al-Alousi represented to investigators that he had purchased AAI in December 2002 and the company had previously done business at that location under a different name and owner.
The investigators' review showed that a prior DEA investigation of the former company and its owner had been conducted which adduced substantial information that the company had distributed list I chemicals without a DEA registration and knowingly distributed large quantities of list I chemicals to methamphetamine laboratories during the mid-to-late 1990's. The former owner, a citizen of Lebanon, had been arrested by U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service officers for willfully and falsely representing himself as a citizen of the United States.
At the time of the DEA investigators' on-site pre-registration inspection of AAI's premises, the business sign still bore the former company's name and that name was also on a facsimile cover sheet and document which was sent by Mrs. Al-Alousi to DEA investigators during the pre-registration inquiry.
Mr. Al-Alousi advised investigators that AAI was now a wholesale distributor of cigarettes, washing powder, oil, candy and novelty items to approximately 150 convenience stores
During the investigation, the Al-Alousi's were unable to provide investigators any records of sales and purchases and stated their records were transferred weekly to a bookkeeper. According to a list provided investigators, the great majority of AAI's customers were convenience stores and gas stations. It was also determined that neither Mr. nor Mrs. Al-Alousi had any prior experience in the distribution of list I chemicals.
On July 9, 2003, investigators attempted to conduct verifications of twelve customers from AAI's list. Two addresses did not exist; one was a printing shop that was out of business; one was an apartment complex; one was a bar/pool hall; one was a fast-food stand; two alleged customers advised they had never done business with either AAI or its predecessor company; two others stated they only purchased paper and plastic products from its predecessor company and had never heard of AAI; and one stated he had purchased list I chemical cold products from AAI's predecessor but would not do so in the future and had never heard of AAI. The results of these verification attempts cast doubt on the veracity of Mr. Al-Alousi's representations regarding the nature of AAI's business and its prospective customers for list I chemical products.
DEA is aware that small illicit laboratories operate with listed chemical products often procured, legally or illegally, from non-traditional retailers of over-the-counter drug products, such as gas stations and small retail markets. Some retailers acquire product from multiple distributors to mask their acquisition of large amounts of listed chemicals. In addition, some individuals utilize sham corporations or fraudulent records to establish a commercial identity in order to acquire listed chemicals.
DEA knows by experience that there exists a “gray market” in which certain high strength, high quantity pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products are distributed only to convenience stores and gas stations, from where they have a high incidence of diversion. These grey market products are not sold in large discount stores, retail pharmacies or grocery stores, where sales of therapeutic over-the-counter drugs predominate.
DEA also knows from industry data, market studies and statistical analysis that over 90 percent of over-the-counter drug remedies are sold in drug stores, supermarket chains and “big box” discount retailers. Less than one percent of cough and cold remedies are sold in gas stations or convenience stores. Studies have indicated that most convenience stores could not be expected to sell more than $20.00 to $40.00 worth of products containing pseudoephedrine per month. The expected sales of ephedrine products are known to be even smaller. Furthermore, convenience stores handling gray market products often order more product than what is required for the legitimate market and obtain chemical products from multiple distributors.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(h), the Deputy Administrator may deny an application for a Certificate of Registration if she determines that granting the registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Section 823(h) requires that the following factors be considered in determining the public interest:
(1) Maintenance of effective controls against diversion of listed chemicals into other than legitimate channels;
(2) Compliance with applicable Federal, State and local law;
(3) Any prior conviction record under Federal or State laws relating to controlled substances or to chemicals controlled under Federal or State law;
(4) Any past experience of the applicant in the manufacture and distribution of chemicals; and
(5) Such other factors as are relevant to and consistent with the public health and safety.
As with the public interest analysis for practitioners and pharmacies pursuant to subsection (f) of section 823, these factors are to be considered in the disjunctive; the Deputy Administrator may rely on any one or a combination of factors and may give each factor the weight she deems appropriate in determining whether a registration should be revoked or an application for registration denied.
The Deputy Administrator finds factors one, four and five relevant to the pending application for registration.
As to factor one, maintenance of effective controls against diversion of listed chemicals into other than legitimate channels, the DEA pre-registration inspection documented that many of AAI's customers would be coming to the registered location to pick up their products. Under this procedure, AAI would not be able to adequately verify the location and legitimacy of its customers. Additionally the listed chemicals would be stored such that AAI's retail and wholesale customers, as well as all of its employees, would have access to the listed chemical products, thus increasing risk of diversion. Accordingly, this factor weighs against the granting of AAI's pending application.
With regard to factor four, the applicant's past experience in the distribution of chemicals, the Deputy Administrator finds this factor relevant based on Mr. and Mrs. Al-Alousi's lack of knowledge and experience regarding the laws and regulations governing handing of list I chemical products. In prior DEA decisions, this lack of experience in handling list I chemical products has been a factor in denying pending applications for registration.
With regard to factor five, other factors relevant to and consistent with the public safety, the Deputy Administrator finds this factor weighs heavily against granting the application. Unlawful methamphetamine use is a growing public health and safety concern throughout the United States and the South. Ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are precursor products needed to manufacture methamphetamine and operators of illicit methamphetamine laboratories regularly acquire the precursor products needed to manufacture the drug from convenience stores and gas stations which, in prior DEA decisions, have been identified as constituting the grey market for list I chemical products. It is apparent that AAI intends on being a participant in this market.
While there are no specific prohibitions under the Controlled Substances Act regarding the sale of listed chemical products to these entities, DEA has nevertheless found these establishments serve as sources for the diversion of large amounts of listed chemical products.
The Deputy Administrator has previously found that many
The Deputy Administrator is also troubled by AAI's failure to provide accurate customer information to DEA investigators, indicating the company cannot be trusted to handle the responsibilities of a registrant. Further, its continued or implied use of its predecessor's name, an entity which prior investigations had linked with the diversion of listed chemicals to illicit laboratories, raises questions about AAI's customer base and the risk that its products might be sold to previous customers of AAI's predecessor and then diverted to illegal purposes.
Based on the foregoing, the Deputy Administrator concludes that granting the pending application would be inconsistent with the public interest.
Accordingly, the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, pursuant to the authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C. 823 and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby orders the pending application for DEA Certificate of Registration, submitted by Al-Alousi, Inc., be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective February 24, 2005.
On April 29, 2004, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to Ray V. Surapaneni, D.O. (Dr. Surapaneni) who was notified of an opportunity to show cause as to why DEA should not revoke his DEA Certificate of Registration, BS3724932, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3). Specifically, the Order to Show Cause alleged that Dr. Surapaneni's authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Missouri had been revoked.
The Order to Show Cause notified Dr. Surapaneni that should no request for a hearing be filed within 30 days, his hearing right would be deemed waived. Alternatively, he could waive a hearing and submit a written statement regarding his position on the matters of fact and law for the Deputy Administrator's consideration, along with the material within the investigative case file.
The Order to Show Cause was initially sent by certified mail to Dr. Surapaneni at an address which was not current. On September 2, 2004, the Order to Show Cause was resent and Dr. Surapaneni received it on September 6, 2004. In his September 10, 2004, letter to the Hearing Clerk, DEA Office of Administrative Law Judges, Dr. Surapaneni affirmatively waived a hearing and asked the Deputy Administrator to not revoke his registration and to consider the contents of the letter in deciding the matter.
The Deputy Administrator of DEA, after considering material from the investigative file and the written statement of Dr. Surapaneni, now enters her final order without a hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(b) and (e) 1301.46.
The Deputy Administrator finds Dr. Surapaneni is currently registered with DEA as a practitioner authorized to handle controlled substances in Schedules II through V under DEA Certificate of Registration BS3724932, with a registered location of 1515 Union Avenue, Moberly, Missouri.
According to information in the investigative file, in June 2003, Dr. Surapaneni entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the DEA Saint Louis Field Division as a condition of renewing his DEA registration. Among the MOA's terms was a provision that his DEA registration would terminate automatically if he were to lose authority to handle controlled substances in Missouri, his State of registration.
On December 9, 2003, the Missouri Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) notified Dr. Surapaneni that his Missouri Controlled Substances Registration No. 307766793, had been terminated and he did not “currently have the authority to conduct any activities with controlled substances in the state of Missouri.” The investigative file indicates his state controlled substances registration was terminated because it had been issued for a specific location in Paris, Missouri and, pursuant to a March 11, 2003, Settlement Agreement Between Dr. Surapaneni and BNDD, his registration would terminate immediately if he relocated his professional practice. BNDD subsequently discovered Dr. Surapaneni had never been employed by or practiced at the Paris, Missouri location. Efforts by DEA diversion investigators to obtain his certificate by surrender proved unsuccessful and show cause proceedings were then initiated.
In his written statement to the Deputy Administrator, Dr. Surapaneni indicates he was unable to join the Paris, Missouri, practice because he lacked start-up funds, attributing this financial plight to a previous office manager having embezzled $150,000 from him. Dr. Surapaneni also says he is seeking medical employment and intends to reapply for his Missouri registration once he has found a position.
However, Dr. Surapaneni does not dispute that his State controlled substances registration was terminated by BNDD or claim any current authority to handle controlled substances in that State. Therefore, the Deputy Administrator finds Dr. Surapaneni is currently not authorized to handle controlled substances in Missouri.
DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to issue or maintain a registration if the applicant or registrant is without State authority to handle controlled substances in the State in which he conducts business.
Here, it is clear Dr. Surapaneni's State controlled substance registration was terminated and there is no information that action was ever stayed or that his registration has been reinstated. As a result, Dr. Surapaneni is not licensed to handle controlled substances in Missouri, where he is registered with DEA. Therefore, he is not entitled to maintain that registration.
Accordingly, the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, pursuant to the authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C. 823 and 824 and 28 C.F.R. 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby orders that DEA Certificate of Registration, BS3724932, issued to Ray V. Surapaneni, D.O., be, and it hereby is, revoked. The Deputy Administrator further orders that any
On April 29, 2004, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to James E. Thomas, M.D. (Dr. Thomas) of Troy, Alabama, notifying him of an opportunity to show cause as to why DEA should not revoke his DEA Certificate of Registration AT7586829, as a practitioner, under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) and deny any pending applications for renewal or modification of that registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f). As a basis for revocation, the Order to Show Cause alleged that Dr. Thomas is not currently authorized to practice medicine or handle controlled substances in Alabama, his State of registration and practice. The Order to Show Cause also notified Dr. Thomas that should no request for a hearing be filed within 30 days, his hearing right would be deemed waived.
The Order to Show Cause was sent by certified mail to Dr. Thomas at his address of record at P.O. Drawer 947, Suite 2, Highway 231, Troy, Alabama. That correspondence was returned marked “Not Deliverable as Addressed—Unable to Forward.” It was then determined the local DEA office had sent three registered letters to Dr. Thomas' home and office addresses and all had been returned marked “unforwardable.” Further, the State of Alabama, Medical Licensure Commission (Alabama Commission) had tried to contact Dr. Thomas without success. The Deputy Administrator finds reasonable efforts to contact and serve Dr. Thomas with the Order to Show Cause have been made and DEA has not received a request for hearing or any other reply from Dr. Thomas or anyone purporting to represent him in this matter.
Therefore, the Deputy Administrator, finding (1) 30 days have passed since DEA's attempt to serve the Order to Show Cause at the registered location and that good faith efforts to locate Dr. Thomas have failed and (2) no request for a hearing having been received, concludes that Dr. Thomas is deemed to have waived his hearing right,
The Deputy Administrator finds Dr. Thomas currently possesses DEA Certificate of Registration AT7586829, which expires on November 30, 2005. The Deputy Administrator further finds that on June 16, 2003, the Alabama Commission issued an Order revoking Dr. Thomas' license to practice medicine in Alabama. The suspension was based upon findings of fact,
The investigative file contains no evidence the Alabama Commission's Order has been stayed, modified or terminated or that Dr. Thomas' medical license has been reinstated. Therefore, the Deputy Administrator finds Dr. Thomas is not currently authorized to practice medicine in the State of Alabama. As a result, it is reasonable to infer he is also without authorization to handle controlled substances in that State.
DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to issue or maintain a registration if the applicant or registrant is without State authority to handle controlled substances in the State in which he conducts business.
Here, it is clear Dr. Thomas' medical license has been revoked and he is not currently licensed to handle controlled substances in Alabama, where he is registered with DEA. Therefore, he is not entitled to a DEA registration in that State.
Accordingly, the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, pursuant to the authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C. 823 and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby orders that DEA Certificate of Registration AT7586829, issued to James E. Thomas, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. The Deputy Administrator further orders that any pending applications for renewal of such registration be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective February 24, 2005.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor.
Statement of policy.
The Department of Labor, through the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), is responsible for the development and publication of local area labor force statistics. In the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program, monthly estimates of the labor force, employment, unemployment, and the unemployment rate for more than 7,000 areas in the Nation are developed and issued monthly. With data for January 2005, to be published in March 2005, the monthly labor force estimates prepared in the LAUS program will be based on methodological improvements that resulted from the completion of a number of projects to improve the statistical basis of the estimates. In addition, the LAUS estimates will reflect updated geography and other techniques that are based on 2000 Census data.
These changes will be effective with January 2005 LAUS estimates issued in March 2005.
Sharon P. Brown, Chief, Division of Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Telephone 202-691-6390.
The BLS received one comment in response to the request for comments on the Proposal to Revise the Method for Estimation of Monthly Labor Force Statistics for Certain Subnational Areas. That commenter was opposed to the use of model based estimation for the Miami metropolitan division. In BLS's judgment the statistical modeling
Since the BLS was given responsibility for the LAUS program in 1972, a hierarchy of estimation methods has been used to produce the State and area labor force estimates, based in large part on the availability and quality of data from the CPS, the official measure of the labor force for the nation. The BLS has continuously advanced the statistical basis of the LAUS estimates by researching and implementing improved statistically sound methodology, updating the methodology with decennial census data, and reflecting the latest decennial identification of geographic areas.
The improved model-based approach to estimation with real-time benchmarking addresses these issues. The models are signal-plus-noise models, where the signal is a bivariate model of the employment or unemployment level. Seasonal adjustment occurs within the model structure. Real-time benchmarking ensures that State estimates add to the national estimates of employment and unemployment each month. (The benchmark changes from annual State-level estimates of employment and unemployment to monthly national estimates of these measures.) In this way, economic shocks will be reflected in the State estimates on a real-time basis, and end-of-year revisions will be significantly smaller. The models with real-time benchmarking produce reliability measures for the seasonally adjusted and not seasonally adjusted series, and on over-the-month and over-the-year change.
These area models are univariate and are benchmarked to the State employment and unemployment estimates on a real-time basis. As with the State models, seasonally adjusted series are produced, along with measures of error for the seasonally adjusted and not seasonally adjusted series, and on over-the-month and over-the-year change.
The new methodology incorporates the CPS new and reentrants State data and utilizes improved econometric modeling techniques. In this model, the values of the coefficients change from month to month as the models are updated with information from current observations. The model estimates are distributed to each labor market area in the State based on the area's share of the State population. New entrants are distributed based on the area's share of the State 16-19 year old population, and reentrants are distributed based on the area's share of the State 20 years and older population.
In the new method, resident employment in an area is a function not only of the relationship between employed residents and jobs in that area, but in other areas within commuting distance. The procedure is more dynamic than the prior method insofar as job count changes in commuting areas can affect resident employment. As in the current procedure, however, the commuting ratios themselves are fixed for the intercensal period.
Detailed descriptions of the current and redesign approaches are available at the above address and at the BLS LAUS Web site
The following parties have filed petitions to modify the application of existing safety standards under section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.
Six M Coal Company, 482 High Road, Ashland, Pennsylvania 17921 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.1400 (Hoisting equipment; general) to its No. 1 Slope Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 36-09138) located in Daupin County, Pennsylvania. The petitioner proposes to use a slope conveyance (gunboat) in transporting persons without installing safety catches or other no less effective devices. The petitioner would instead use increased rope strength and secondary safety rope connections in place of such devices. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, 1800 Washington Road, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15241 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.364(b)(2) (Weekly examination) to its Enlow Fork Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 36-07416) located in Greene County, Pennsylvania. The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit the use of monitoring stations in lieu of walking the complete entries of the return air course. The petitioner proposes to establish three monitoring stations in the affected area of the air course and have a certified person examine the stations on a weekly basis to determine the quantity and quality of air entering and exiting the stations. The petitioner states that the air quality measurements will be made using an MSHA approved hand-held methane and oxygen meter, and the examiner will record their initials, and the date and time of examinations on a date board maintained at each monitoring station, and in a book kept on the surface. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Persons interested in these petitions are encouraged to submit comments via Federal eRulemaking Portal:
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 Robotic and Human Exploration of Mars Strategic Roadmap Committee.
Tuesday, February 8, 2005, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Wednesday, February 9, 2005, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Thursday, February 10, 2005, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Carnegie Institution, second floor, 1530 P Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Dr. Michael Meyer, 202-358-0307.
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.
The National Endowment for the Humanities.
Notice of meetings.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), notice is hereby given that the following meetings of the Humanities Panel will be held at the Old Post Office, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506.
Daniel Schneider, Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Endowment for the Humanities, Washington, DC 20506; telephone (202) 606-8322. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter may be obtained by contacting the Endowment's TDD terminal on (202) 606-8282.
The proposed meetings are for the purpose of panel review, discussion, evaluation and recommendation on applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including discussion of information given in confidence to the agency by the grant applicants. Because the proposed meetings will consider information that is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential and/or information of a personal nature the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, pursuant to authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have determined that these meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to subsections (c)(4),
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of availability.
John Nicholson, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406, telephone (610) 337-5236, fax (610) 337-5269; or by email:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a license amendment to Pharmacopeia, Inc. for Materials License No. 29-30152-01, to authorize release of its facility in Monmouth Junction, New Jersey for unrestricted use. NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice.
The purpose of the action is to authorize the release of the licensee's Monmouth Junction, New Jersey facility for unrestricted use. Pharmacopeia, Inc. was authorized by NRC from February 1999 to use radioactive materials for research and development purposes at the site. On April 28, 2004, Pharmacopeia, Inc. requested that NRC release the facility for unrestricted use. Pharmacopeia, Inc. has conducted surveys of the facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the license termination criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted use. Pharmacopeia, Inc. will continue licensed activities at another location, as authorized by the license.
The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the license amendment. The facility was remediated and surveyed prior to the licensee requesting the license amendment. The NRC staff has reviewed the information and final status survey submitted by Pharmacopeia, Inc. Based on its review, the staff has determined that there are no additional remediation activities necessary to complete the proposed action. Therefore, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the facility and concluded that since the residual radioactivity meets the requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20, a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.
The staff has prepared the EA (summarized above) in support of the license amendment to release the facility for unrestricted use. The NRC staff has evaluated Pharmacopeia, Inc.”s request and the results of the surveys and has concluded that the completed action complies with the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has found that the environmental impacts from the action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by NUREG-1496, Volumes 1-3, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Facilities' (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). On the basis of the EA, the NRC has concluded that the environmental impacts from the action are expected to be insignificant and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the action.
Documents related to this action, including the application for the license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of availability.
Myron Fliegel, Project manager, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-6629; fax number: (301) 415-5955; e-mail:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a license amendment to Material License No. SUB-1010 issued to Sequoyah Fuels Corporation (the licensee), to authorize the licensee to dewater existing raffinate sludge and temporarily store the dewatered sludge at its Gore, Oklahoma facility prior to final disposition. NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this amendment in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to authorize the licensee to dewater existing raffinate sludge and temporarily store the dewatered sludge at its Gore, Oklahoma facility prior to final disposition. Approximately 1 million cubic feet of raffinate sludge was produced, as a waste, during the operation of the SFC facility. The sludge, which contains various metals in addition to uranium, thorium, and radium, is 15 to 20 percent solid material and is stored in three hypalon-lined impoundments on the site. It must be dewatered prior to permanent disposal, either in an onsite disposal cell or offsite at a licensed disposal facility. The licensee proposes to dewater the raffinate sludge using a pressurized plate press filtering process. The equipment would be set up in an area near the impoundments containing the sludge and dismantled at the conclusion of the dewatering process. The dewatered sludge would be put into 2200 pound capacity bags of woven polypropylene fabric and temporarily stored on a nearby concrete pad prior to final disposal. Temporary storage cells will be constructed on the concrete pad to contain the bags of raffinate sludge. The cells will be lined with 20 mil, high density cross-laminated polyethylene and covered with the same material.
On January 7, 2004, Sequoyah Fuels Corporation requested that NRC approve the proposed amendment. The licensee's request for the proposed change was previously noticed in the
The staff has prepared the EA in support of the proposed license amendment. The only environmental impact under normal conditions would be an increase in the radon concentration in the air at the site. However, the radon concentration at the site boundary would be well below the 10 CFR Part 20 standard. There is also a potential for release of some material during adverse meteorological conditions. In the unlikely event of a tornado strike on the cells, some of the sludge can be dispersed, but it is unlikely that it would be carried offsite. The licensee would be required to clean up the dispersed material. Some severe precipitation events could result in release of some sludge to the nearby Illinois River and Robert S. Kerr Reservoir but concentrations are unlikely to exceed the standards for normal releases in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has concluded that the proposed action, to dewater existing raffinate sludge and temporarily store it in lined and covered cells, will result in minimal environmental impacts. Radon levels will be increased but will remain well within regulatory limits. In addition, there is the potential, under unusual conditions (e.g., during a severe storm), of releasing small amounts of contaminants in low concentrations, to the Robert S. Kerr Reservoir.
On the basis of the EA, NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed amendment and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement.
Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at
These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of January 24, 31; February 7, 14, 21, 28, 2005.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of February 7, 2005.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of February 28, 2005.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)—(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Dave Gamberoni, (301) 415-1651.
By a vote of 3-0 on January 19, 2005, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and § 9.107(a) of the Commission's rules that “Affirmation of Proposed Order Resolving Public Citizen's Request for Hearing on the Commission's July 2, 2004, Spent Fuel Security Order,” be held January 19, 2005, and on less than one week's notice to the public.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, (301) 415-1969. In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget a request for clearance of these information collections:
• Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions, Standard Form 85 (SF 85);
• Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions, Standard Form 85P (SF 85P);
• Supplemental Questionnaire for Selected Positions, Standard Form 85P-S (SF 85P-S);
• Questionnaire for National Security Positions, Standard Form 86 (SF 86);
• Continuation Sheet for Questionnaires SF 86, 85P, and 85, Standard Form 86A (SF 86A);
• Certification Statement for SF 86, Standard Form SF 86C (SF 86C); and
• Parallel, electronic versions of the SF 85, SF 85P, and SF 86, including
These information collections are completed by applicants for, or incumbents of, Government positions, or positions for the Government under contract, or by military personnel. The collections are used as the basis of information for background investigations to establish that such persons are suitable for:
• Employment or retention in employment;
• Employment or retention as contractor; or eligible for:
• A public trust position; or
• Employment or retention as a Federal employee, Federal contractor or military personnel in a sensitive or national security position requiring access to classified national security information or special nuclear information or material.
When use is necessary, the SF 86A is used in lieu of blank paper as a continuation of the form with which its use is associated and not for any unique purpose exclusive from the associated form.
Comments are particularly invited on:
• Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Office of Personnel Management and its Center for Federal Investigative Services, which administers background investigations;
• Whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and
• Ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use of the appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
• Ways in which we can enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
The SF 85, SF 85P, SF 85P-S, SF 86, SF 86A, and SF 86C are completed by both employees of the Federal Government and individuals not employed with the Federal Government, including Federal contractors, and military personnel.
Federal employees are defined as those individuals who are employed as civilian or military personnel with the Federal Government. Non-Federal employees include members of the general public and all individuals employed as Federal and military contractors, or individuals otherwise not directly employed by the Federal Government.
It is estimated that 17,000 non-Federal individuals will complete the SF 85 annually. Each form takes approximately 30 minutes to complete. The estimated annual public burden is 8,500 hours.
It is estimated that 49,000 non-Federal individuals will complete the SF 85P annually. Each form takes approximately 60 minutes to complete. The estimated annual burden is 49,000 hours.
It is estimated that 3,600 non-Federal individuals will complete the SF 85P-S annually. Each form takes approximately 10 minutes to complete. The estimated annual burden is 600 hours.
It is estimated that 56,000 non-Federal individuals will complete the SF 86 annually. Each form takes approximately 90 minutes to complete. The estimated annual burden is 84,000 hours.
It is estimated that 16,000 non-Federal individuals will complete the SF 86A annually. When this continuation form is used, however, no public burden estimate is provided as it is included with the time computed with the associated security questionnaire.
It is estimated that 1,200 non-Federal individuals will complete the SF 86C annually. Each form takes approximately 15 minutes to complete. The estimated annual burden is 300 hours.
e-QIP (Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing) is a Web-based system application that houses or will house electronic versions or the SF 86, SF 85P, SF 85P-S, and SF 85. The SF 86 is in full production and the SF 85P, SF 85P-S and SF 85 will be available for full production by early 2005. This Internet data collection tool is used in place of—not in addition to—the paper versions of these forms. Individuals using the e-QIP versions will enjoy more convenience, faster processing time, and immediate data validation to ensure accuracy of their personal history information. The data requested on these forms is consistent with that requested on their paper counterparts. e-QIP is a newly implemented system, which accounts for approximately 5% of all security forms submitted at this time. As implementation among Federal agencies expands, it is anticipated that the percentage of all security forms processed through e-QIP will exceed 50% by 2006.
While e-QIP will significantly enhance the processing of security questionnaires for processing of background investigations, we do not expect an immediate discernable change to the public burden hours from those cited above for identical paper versions of the forms.
For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606-8358, Fax (202) 418-3251, or e-mail at
Comments on this proposal should be received within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
Send or deliver comments to: Kathy Dillaman, Deputy Associate Director, Center for Federal Investigative Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E. Street, Room 5416, Washington, DC 20415.
Doug Steele—Program Analyst, Standards and Evaluations Group, Center for Federal Investigative Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, (202) 606-2325.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Small Business Administration's intentions to request approval on a new and/or currently approved information collection.
Submit comments on or before March 28, 2005.
Send all comments regarding whether these information collections are necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, whether the burden estimates are accurate, and if there are ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the collections, to Johnny Kitts, Chief Fund Administrator, Office of Investment, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6300, Wash, DC 20416.
Johnny Kitts, Chief, Fund Administrator, 202-205-7587
Send all comments regarding whether these information collections are necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, whether the burden estimates are accurate, and if there are ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the collections, to Louis Cupp, New Markets Policy, Office of Investment, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6300, Wash, DC 20416.
Louis Cupp, New Markets Policy Analysis, 202-619-0511
Send all comments regarding whether this information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, whether the burden estimates are accurate, and if there are ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the collection, to Robert Dillier, Public Affairs Specialist, Office of Communications and Public Liaison, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 7450, Wash, DC 20416
Robert Dillier, Public Affairs, 202-205-6086
Social Security Administration (SSA).
Proposed new system of records and proposed routine uses.
In accordance with the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (e)(11)), we are issuing public notice of our intent to establish a new system of records entitled
We filed a report of the proposed new system of records and proposed routine use disclosures with the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, and the Director, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on January 11, 2005. The proposed system of records and routine uses will become effective on February 20, 2005, unless we receive comments warranting it not to become effective.
Interested individuals may comment on this publication by writing to the Executive Director, Office of Public Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Room 3-A-6 Operations Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401. All comments received will be available for public inspection at the above address.
Ms. Linda Thibodeaux, Lead Social Insurance Specialist, Strategic Issues Team, Office of Public Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Room 3-A-6 Operations Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235, e-mail address at
The Social Security Administration's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) workload has increased rapidly in the last several years and is expected to continue increasing in volume. The existing system that is used to control and process this workload is antiquated and was not designed to interface with other systems that support the functionality of the
The information that SSA will collect and maintain in the
We are proposing to establish routine uses of information that will be
We will disclose information under this routine use only in situations in which an individual may contact the Office of the President, seeking that Office's assistance in a matter relating to information contained in this system of records. Information will be disclosed when the Office of the President makes an inquiry and indicates that it is acting on behalf of the individual whose record is requested.
We will disclose information under this routine use only in situations in which an individual may ask his or her congressional representative to intercede in a matter relating to information contained in this system of records. Information will be disclosed when the congressional representative makes an inquiry and indicates that he or she is acting on behalf of the individual whose record is requested.
We will disclose information under this routine use only as necessary to enable the IRS to audit SSA's compliance with the safeguard provisions of the IRC of 1986, as amended.
We will disclose information under this routine use only to DOJ as necessary to defend SSA when a member of the public files suit against SSA under the FOIA.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
We will disclose information under this routine use only as necessary to enable DOJ to effectively defend SSA, its components or employees, in litigation involving the proposed new system of records and ensure that courts and other tribunals have appropriate information.
The Administrator of GSA and the Archivist of NARA are charged by 44 U.S.C. 2904, as amended, with promulgating standards, procedures and guidelines regarding record management and conducting records management studies. 44 U.S.C. 2906, as amended, provides that GSA and NARA are to have access to Federal agencies' records and that agencies are to cooperate with GSA and NARA. In carrying out these responsibilities, it may be necessary for GSA and NARA to have access to this proposed system of records. In such instances, the routine use will facilitate disclosure.
Under certain Federal statutes, SSA is authorized to use the service of volunteers and participants in certain educational, training, employment and community service programs. Examples of such statutes and programs include: 5 U.S.C. 3111 regarding student volunteers and 42 U.S.C. 2753 regarding the College Work-Study Program. We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only when SSA uses the services of these individuals, and they need access to information in this system to perform their assigned Agency duties.
•
•
We will disclose information under this routine use to law enforcement agencies and private security contractors when information is needed to respond to, investigate, or prevent, activities that jeopardize the security and safety of SSA customers, employees or workplaces or that otherwise disrupt the operation of SSA facilities. Information would also be disclosed to assist in the prosecution of persons charged with violating Federal or local law in connection with such activities.
We will disclose information under this routine use only in situations in which SSA may enter into a contractual agreement or similar agreement with a third party to assist in accomplishing an Agency function relating to this system of records.
We will disclose information under this routine use only when the records or information of such type were so disclosed under applicable rules, regulations and procedures that were in effect prior to SSA becoming independent of HHS.
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3)) and our disclosure regulations (20 CFR part 401) permit us to disclose
SSA will maintain information in the
Contractor personnel having access to data in the proposed system of records will be required to adhere to SSA rules concerning safeguards, access and use of the data.
SSA and contractor personnel having access to the data on this system will be informed of the criminal penalties of the Privacy Act for unauthorized access to, or disclosure of, information maintained in this system.
Members of the public have the right under the FOIA to request information from Federal agencies. The proposed
60-0340.
Electronic Freedom of Information Act (eFOIA) System, SSA/OGC/OPD.
None.
Office of Public Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401.
Individuals, or groups of individuals, who write to the Freedom of Information Officer, Social Security Administration.
Copies of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) initial requests from individuals and groups of individuals and replies from SSA's Freedom of Information Officer; FOIA appeals and replies to those appeals; and SSA records that relate to initial and appeal requests (
The Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
This system will be used to manage the Agency's FOIA workload. This includes assigning work, processing work electronically, tracking the status of assignments and providing management information reports relating to the FOIA requests received by SSA.
Disclosure may be made for routine uses as indicated below. However, disclosure of any information defined as “return or return information” under 26 U.S.C. 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) will not be made unless authorized by a statute, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), or IRS regulations.
1. To the Office of the President for the purpose of responding to an individual pursuant to an inquiry received from that individual or from a third party on his or her behalf.
2. To a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that office made at the request of the subject of a record.
3. To the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as necessary, for the purpose of auditing SSA's compliance with safeguard provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) of 1986, as amended.
4. To the Department of Justice (DOJ) to defend SSA in FOIA litigation involving a record maintained in this system of records.
5. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), a court or other tribunal, or another party before such tribunal when:
a. SSA, any component thereof; or
b. Any SSA employee in his/her official capacity; or
c. Any SSA employee in his/her individual capacity where DOJ (or SSA where it is authorized to do so) has agreed to represent the employee; or
d. The United States or any agency thereof where SSA determines that the litigation is likely to affect the operations of SSA or any of its components, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and SSA determines that the use of such records by DOJ, a court or other tribunal, or another party before such tribunal, is relevant and necessary to the litigation, provided, however, that in each case, SSA determines that such disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
Disclosure of any information defined as “returns or return information” under 26 U.S.C. 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) will not be made unless authorized by a statute, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), or IRS regulations.
6. Non-tax return information which is not restricted from disclosure by Federal law may be disclosed to the General Services Administration (GSA) and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906, as amended by NARA Act of 1984, for the use of those agencies in conducting records management studies.
7. To student volunteers, individuals working under a personal service contract, and other individuals performing functions for SSA but technically not having the status of Agency employees, if they need access
8. To Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and private security contractors, as appropriate, information necessary:
a. To enable them to protect the safety of SSA employees and customers, the security of the SSA workplace, and the operation of SSA facilities, or
b. To assist investigations or prosecutions with respect to activities that affect such safety and security or activities that disrupt the operation of SSA facilities.
9. To contractors and other Federal agencies, as necessary, for the purpose of assisting SSA in the efficient administration of its programs. We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which SSA may enter into a contractual or similar agreement with a third party to assist in accomplishing an Agency function relating to this system of records.
10. The Commissioner shall disclose to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), or to any State, any record or information requested in writing by the Secretary to be so disclosed for the purpose of administering any program administered by the Secretary, if records or information of such type were so disclosed under applicable rules, regulations and procedures in effect before the date of enactment of the Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994.
Records in this system are maintained and stored in electronic form.
Records in this system are retrieved by a requester's or third party's first name, last name, Social Security Number (SSN), subject matter, or control number.
Security measures include the use of access codes to enter the computer system which will maintain the data, the storage of computerized records in secured areas which are accessible only to employees who require the information in performing their official duties. Any manually maintained records will be kept in locked cabinets or in otherwise secure areas. SSA employees who have access to the data will be informed of the criminal penalties of the Privacy Act for unauthorized access to or disclosure of information maintained in the system.
Contractor personnel having access to data in the system of records will be required to adhere to SSA rules concerning safeguards, access and use of the data.
Any document related to a FOIA request that has been denied will be retained (stored electronically) for six years from the response date. Requests that have been granted will be retained for two years from the response date. When the time period has elapsed, the case will be deleted provided (1) it is a closed case and (2) there are no open cases linked to that case. If the case is still open or linked to another open case, deletion will be delayed until closure of all cases involved.
Freedom of Information Officer, Office of Public Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401.
An individual can determine if this system contains a record about him/her by writing to the systems manager(s) at the above address and providing his/her name, SSN or other information that may be in the system of records that will identify him/her. An individual requesting notification of records in person should provide the same information, as well as provide an identity document, preferably with a photograph, such as a driver's license or some other means of identification. If an individual does not have any identification documents sufficient to establish his/her identity, the individual must certify in writing that he/she is the person claimed to be and that he/she understands that the knowing and willful request for, or acquisition of, a record pertaining to another individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense.
If notification is requested by telephone, an individual must verify his/her identity by providing name, SSN, address, date of birth, place of birth, and at least one other piece of identifying information that parallels the record to which notification is being requested. If it is determined that the identifying information provided by telephone is insufficient, the individual will be required to submit a request in writing or in person. If an individual is requesting information by telephone on behalf of another individual, the subject individual must be connected with SSA and the requesting individual in the same phone call. SSA will establish the subject individual's identity (his/her name, SSN, address, date of birth and place of birth along with one other piece of information such as mother's maiden name) and ask for his/her permission to provide the information to the requesting individual.
If a request for notification is submitted by mail, an individual must include a notarized statement to SSA to verify his/her identity or must certify in the request that he/she is the person claimed to be and that he/she understands that the knowing and willful request for, or acquisition of, a record pertaining to another individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense. These procedures are in accordance with SSA Regulations (20 CFR 401.40).
Same as Notification procedures. Requesters also should reasonably specify the record contents they are seeking. These procedures are in accordance with SSA Regulations (20 CFR 401.50).
Same as Notification procedures. Requesters should also reasonably identify the record, specify the information they are contesting, and state the corrective action sought and the reasons for the correction with supporting justification showing how the record is untimely, incomplete, inaccurate, or irrelevant. These procedures are in accordance with SSA Regulations (20 CFR 401.65).
Information is furnished by the inquirer and generated by SSA in response to FOIA requests.
None.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Department of State has forwarded
Mr. Peter J. Berry, Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Licensing, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State (202) 663-2700.
Section 36(f) of the Arms Export Control Act mandates that notifications to the Congress pursuant to sections 36(c) and 36(d) must be published in the
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed manufacturing license agreement for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of technical data, defense services and hardware for design, development, fabrication and export of Day/Night Range Sights specified for the HITFIST Turret for the Polish Army.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles or defense services sold commercially under a contract in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of technical data, hardware and assistance to Mexico for the manufacture of connectors for aircraft, sea-going vessels, tanks and Multiple Launch Rocket Systems for import to the U.S.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles that are firearms controlled under category I of the United States Munitions List sold commercially under a contract in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves two licenses for the export of 1450 Colt M4 full-auto carbines, 300 Colt M16A4 full-auto rifles and associated equipment to the Special Operations Command, Armed Forces, United Arab Emirates.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed manufacturing license agreement for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of technical data, assistance and manufacturing know-how Augusta, Italy for the manufacture of Sikorsky Model S-61 helicopters and parts for resale to various countries.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to section 36(c) and (d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed manufacturing license agreement for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad and the export of defense articles or defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of technical data, hardware and assistance for the manufacture of T55 gas turbine engines, parts and components for the Japan Defense Agency CH-47 helicopter Program.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles that are firearms controlled under category I of the United States Munitions List sold commercially under a contract in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of 1,730 M4 carbines, ammunition and supporting equipment for use by the Department of Financial Administration, Ministry of Interior, Government of Kuwait.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to section 36(c) and (d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed manufacturing license agreement for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad and license for the export of defense articles or defense services sold commercially under a contract in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of technical data, defense services and hardware to Italy to support the manufacture and servicing of CH-47C helicopter, composite blades, parts and ground support equipment for end-use in Egypt, Italy, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles or defense services sold commercially under contract in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense services, technical data and defense articles for the manufacture in Canada of F110/F101/TF39/F404/F404-402/RM12 aircraft engine components for permanent import to the U.S.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles that are firearms controlled under category I of the United States Munitions List sold commercially under a contract in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of 1,195 M16A-Type Carbines, with 6-Position Telestock and Flash Hiders, and ammunition. These weapons are being sold to the Colombian Military for training and tactical operations.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles or defense services sold commercially under a contract in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of technical data, defense services and hardware to India for the manufacture of the Flight Control System for the Light Combat Aircraft for the Indian Ministry of Defense.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles or defense services sold commercially under contract in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of technical data, defense services and hardware to Mexico, Greece and France for the manufacture of electrical wiring harnesses and wiring harness panel assemblies for the F-16, C-130, P-3, S-3 and F-22 aircraft in the U.S.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles or defense services sold commercially under contract in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of technical data and defense services to Japan for the manufacture of various electrical components for UH-60, P-3C and F-15 aircraft in the Japan Defense Agency's (JDA) inventory.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles or defense services sold commercially under a contract in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of technical data, defense services and hardware to Colombia in direct support of the Colombian Army's HELAS Project.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles or defense services sold commercially under a contract in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of technical data, defense services and hardware to Colombia in direct support of Colombian Government Illicit Crop Eradication Programs.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of major defense equipment sold commercially under a contract in the amount of $25,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of 115 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Guided Missile Round Pack (GMRP) MK 44 Mod 2 and MK 47 Mod 8, two blast test vehicles and shipping containers for the Greek Navy.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles or defense services sold commercially under a contract in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of technical data and defense services for the manufacture of upper wing skins for the Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft program.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles or defense services sold commercially under contract in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of technical data, defense services and hardware to Bolivia for implementation of UH-1 and UH-1 II aircraft operations, maintenance, training and logistics support for the Bolivian Government's Illicit Crop Eradication Program.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to section 36(c) and (d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting herewith, certification of a proposed manufacturing license agreement for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad and the export of defense articles or defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transactions described in the attached certification involve the manufacture in Russia and the United States of RD-180 two-chamber rocket motors for use on Atlas launch vehicles, including the USAF Evolved Expandable Launch Vehicle.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Request expert review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage” (SRCCS).
In addition to periodic assessments of the science, impacts, and socio-economic aspects of climate change, the IPCC provides, on request, advice to the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its bodies. The Seventh Conference of the Parties (COP) of the UNFCCC expressed interest in carbon capture and storage by inviting the IPCC to prepare a Technical Paper on geological carbon storage technologies. The IPCC noted that a Technical Paper, which is limited in its scope to summarizing existing IPCC reports,
The IPCC Secretariat has informed the U.S. Department of State that the second-order SRCCS draft is available for expert and Government review. The Climate Change Science Program Office (CCSPO) is coordinating the solicitation of comments by U.S. experts and stakeholders to inform development of an integrated set of U.S. Government comments on the report. Instructions on how to format comments are available at
Properly formatted comments should be sent to CCSPO at
David Dokken, U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Suite 250, 1717 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20006 (
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8609, Low-Income Housing Credit Allocation Certification and Schedule A (Form 8609), Annual Statement.
Written comments should be received on or before March 28, 2005 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Paul Finger Internal Revenue Service, room 6512, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Larnice Mack at Internal Revenue Service, room 6512, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3179, or through the internet at (
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 2553, Election by a Small Business Corporation.
Written comments should be received on or before March 28, 2005 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Paul Finger, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3634, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8838, Consent To Extend the Time To Assess Tax Under Section 367-Gain Recognition Agreement.
Written comments should be received on or before March 28, 2005 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Paul Finger, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3634, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing final regulation, PS-262-82 (TD 8600), Definition of an S Corporation. (§ 1.1361-3).
Written comments should be received on or before March 28, 2005 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Paul Finger, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6512, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Larnice Mack at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6512, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3179, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8878, IRS e-file Signature Authorization-Application for Extension of Time To File.
Written comments should be received on or before March 28, 2005 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Paul Finger, Internal Revenue Service, room 6512, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Larnice Mack at Internal Revenue Service, room 6512, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3179, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Friday, February 18, 2005, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Central Time and Saturday, February 19, from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. Central Time.
Mary Ann Delzer at 1-888-912-1227, or (414) 297-1604.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Friday, February 18, 2005, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Central Time, and Saturday, February 19, from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. Central Time, at Homewood Suites, 4143 Governors Row, Austin, TX. You can submit written comments to the panel by faxing to (414) 297-1623, or by mail to Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, Stop1006MIL, 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or you can contact us at
The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted in Columbia, S.C. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Friday, February 18, 2005, and Saturday, February 19, 2005.
Inez E. De Jesus at 1-888-912-1227 (toll-free), or 954-423-7977 (non toll-free).
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10 (a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Friday, February 18, 2005 from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. and from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. ET and Saturday, February 19, 2004 from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. ET in Columbia, S.C. at the Internal Revenue Service office, 1835 Assembly Street, Columbia, S.C. 29201. For information or to confirm attendance, notification of intent to attend the meeting must be made with Inez De Jesus. Ms. De Jesus may be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7977, or write Inez E. De Jesus, TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Rd., Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324, or post comments to the Web site:
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 28, 2005.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail:
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's
By direction of the Secretary:
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 28, 2005.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20S52), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans will meet February 8-10, 2005, from 8:15 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day, in room 630, VA Central Office, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs regarding the needs of women veterans with respect to health care, rehabilitation, compensation, outreach, and other programs and activities administered by VA designed to meet such needs. The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary regarding such programs and activities.
On February 8, the agenda will include briefings and updates on issues related to women veterans' in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), including any treatment issues related to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom combat veterans and VA's “Seamless Transition” initiative; next steps and implementation of the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) recommendations; briefings and updates on issues in the Veterans Benefits Administration; a briefing from VHA's Women Veterans Health Program Director; legislative issues related to veterans; presentation of Certificates of Appointment to four new Committee members, and a briefing from the National Cemetery Administration. On February 9, the Committee will receive updates and briefings on VA research and studies related to women's health issues, upcoming initiatives of the
Any member of the public wishing to attend should contact Ms. Rebecca Schiller, at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Center for Women Veterans (00W), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Ms. Schiller may be contacted either by phone at (202) 273-6193, fax at (202) 273-7092, or e-mail at
By direction of the Secretary.
Department of Education.
Notice of final priority.
The Secretary of Education announces a priority that may be used for any appropriate programs in the Department of Education (Department) in FY 2005 and in later years. We take this action to focus Federal financial assistance on expanding the number of programs and projects Department-wide that are evaluated under rigorous scientifically based research methods in accordance with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). The definition of scientifically based research in section 9201(37) of NCLB includes other research designs in addition to the random assignment and quasi-experimental designs that are the subject of this priority. However, the Secretary considers random assignment and quasi-experimental designs to be the most rigorous methods to address the question of project effectiveness. While this action is of particular importance for programs authorized by NCLB, it is also an important tool for other programs and, for this reason, is being established for all Department programs. Establishing the priority on a Department-wide basis will permit any office to use the priority for a program for which it is appropriate.
This priority is effective February 24, 2005.
Margo K. Anderson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4W333, Washington, DC 20202-5910. Telephone: (202) 205-3010.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (
The ESEA as reauthorized by the NCLB uses the term
We published a notice of proposed priority in the
In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed priority, almost 300 parties submitted comments on the proposed priority. Although we received substantive comments, we determined that the comments did not warrant changes. However, we have reviewed the notice since its publication and have made a change based on that review. An analysis of the comments and changes is published as an appendix to this notice.
This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications for new awards under the applicable program through a notice in the
When using the priority to give competitive preference to an application, the Secretary will review applications using a two-stage process. In the first stage, the application will be reviewed without taking the priority into account. In the second stage of review, the applications rated highest in stage one will be reviewed for competitive preference.
The Secretary establishes a priority for projects proposing an evaluation plan that is based on rigorous scientifically based research methods to assess the effectiveness of a particular intervention. The Secretary intends that this priority will allow program participants and the Department to determine whether the project produces meaningful effects on student achievement or teacher performance.
Evaluation methods using an experimental design are best for determining project effectiveness. Thus, when feasible, the project must use an experimental design under which participants—
If random assignment is not feasible, the project may use a quasi-experimental design with carefully matched comparison conditions. This alternative design attempts to approximate a randomly assigned control group by matching participants—
In cases where random assignment is not possible and participation in the intervention is determined by a specified cutting point on a quantified continuum of scores, regression discontinuity designs may be employed.
For projects that are focused on special populations in which sufficient numbers of participants are not available to support random assignment or matched comparison group designs, single-subject designs such as multiple baseline or treatment-reversal or interrupted time series that are capable of demonstrating causal relationships can be employed.
Proposed evaluation strategies that use neither experimental designs with random assignment nor quasi-experimental designs using a matched comparison group nor regression discontinuity designs will not be considered responsive to the priority
The proposed evaluation plan must describe how the project evaluator will collect—before the project intervention commences and after it ends—valid and reliable data that measure the impact of participation in the program or in the comparison group.
If the priority is used as a competitive preference priority, points awarded under this priority will be determined by the quality of the proposed evaluation method. In determining the quality of the evaluation method, we will consider the extent to which the applicant presents a feasible, credible plan that includes the following:
(1) The type of design to be used (that is, random assignment or matched comparison). If matched comparison, include in the plan a discussion of why random assignment is not feasible.
(2) Outcomes to be measured.
(3) A discussion of how the applicant plans to assign students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to the project and control group or match them for comparison with other students, teachers, classrooms, or schools.
(4) A proposed evaluator, preferably independent, with the necessary background and technical expertise to carry out the proposed evaluation. An independent evaluator does not have any authority over the project and is not involved in its implementation.
In general, depending on the implemented program or project, under a competitive preference priority, random assignment evaluation methods will receive more points than matched comparison evaluation methods.
As used in this notice—
(A) Means research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs; and
(B) Includes research that—
(i) Employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment;
(ii) Involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn;
(iii) Relies on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid data across evaluators and observers, across multiple measurements and observations, and across studies by the same or different investigators;
(iv) Is evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which individuals entities, programs, or activities are assigned to different conditions and with appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of the condition of interest, with a preference for random-assignment experiments, or other designs to the extent that those designs contain within-condition or across-condition controls;
(v) Ensures that experimental studies are presented in sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at a minimum, offer the opportunity to build systematically on their findings; and
(vi) Has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review.
This notice of final priority has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with the notice of final priority are those we have determined as necessary for administering applicable programs effectively and efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this notice of final priority, we have determined that the benefits of the final priority justify the costs.
We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
Some of the programs affected by this final priority are subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for these programs.
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
ESEA, as reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-110, January 8, 2002.
In general, random assignment does not pose ethical issues when employed to test the effectiveness of a new service or product that is believed to be beneficial and when the number of students who are equally eligible for and seeking that service is more than the number who can be served. When all applicants cannot be served, random assignment is fair, because it gives all participants an equal chance of being selected for the program.
When a random assignment evaluation is not ethical or not feasible, this priority includes quasi-experimental designs such as carefully matched comparison groups, regression discontinuity designs, single-subject designs, and interrupted time series that are capable of estimating program impacts. However, quasi-experimental designs do not provide the level of confidence in causal relationships that random assignment designs provide.